Tanks vs. Attack helos

[Wolfman]

I am amazed at how little the flight sim crowd knows about tanks: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=lomac_wl&id=zzkcl

I made a slight assumption about modern tanks other than M1A2SEP being able to engage targets past 4km, but shhhh allright? Nobody needs to know. :D

[12Alfa]

Todays modern MBT's are getting pretty close to the onboard senors the Helo/aircraft have. The gap is also getting quit narrow in all teck stuff onboard the aircraft hunting tanks. Attack helo's are not the great threat that they once were, still dangerous, but not as say in the 70-80's.
If and only if the helo/ac sees the tank first I would say it has the advantage, but if the tank crew spots the helo/ac first the table is turned. In the simnet we have had good results shooting down helo's and frogfoots with pratice. Having a crew member on air watch help a lot also.
When the threat is there most army's will deploy anti-air unit with the tanks, thous evening out the advantage that those platforms would have.


12Alfa
lost but making good time.

[Sergei]

I am amazed at how little the flight sim crowd knows about tanks: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=lomac_wl&id=zzkcl

I made a slight assumption about modern tanks other than M1A2SEP being able to engage targets past 4km, but shhhh allright? Nobody needs to know. :D

Flight sim crowd KNOWS REALLY NOTHING about tanks
But tankers know about helicopters not too much, I think so.
But helos are main threat of tank on the battlefield.
Can U engage Ka or Mi with Ataka or Vikhr, when they are on the distance from 6 till 10 km?

IMHO :exclam:

[Sergei]

Todays modern MBT's are getting pretty close to the onboard senors the Helo/aircraft have. The gap is also getting quit narrow in all teck stuff onboard the aircraft hunting tanks. Attack helo's are not the great threat that they once were, still dangerous, but not as say in the 70-80's.
If and only if the helo/ac sees the tank first I would say it has the advantage, but if the tank crew spots the helo/ac first the table is turned. In the simnet we have had good results shooting down helo's and frogfoots with pratice. Having a crew member on air watch help a lot also.
When the threat is there most army's will deploy anti-air unit with the tanks, thous evening out the advantage that those platforms would have.


12Alfa
lost but making good time.

Attack helos have MAIN target - TANKS and other heavy enemy.
U're, tanker, working not against helos, but helos work against U.
And U have just a little chance to survive vs helos.
Helos are target for anti-air defense, which cover U.

[dejawolf]

battles in deserts are extremely one-sided because of the flat and open terrain.
it's all about the range..

but the second you change to forest terrain the advantage rapidly diminishes.
suddenly the helos feels like hunting wolves in the jungle with a handgun.
there's the advantage of range, but you never know where they will pouch at you.

[gtrof]

I agreee that attack Helos are a threat to tanks. But today isn't harder to operate helos in modern combat. I mean with all the SAMs and AAA tracks out there, plus the threat of hand held SA-7s, SA-18 and Stingers can helos trully operate well?

[Hackworth]

In Europe how often do you have 6-10 km of unbroken terrain? Maybe in the steppes, but not that often in Europe west of the Bug river. And you forget a helo's worst enemy is a fixed wing AC ;) Not much warning from a IR missile... Basicly, "Dito" your statement Dejawolf. ;)

[12Alfa]

-U're, tanker, working not against helos, but helos work against U.
And U have just a little chance to survive vs helos.-

Well my training has taught me differently. When operating in a battlefield with helo's i look for them as well as other threats, so I do "work against helo's". To move on todays battle field and not would not follow all that we have been taught.

In orders we are told what to expect and if helo's are there I will hunt them and destroy all that i encounter.
As for a little chance ,, your assuming here and have no facts to back up that statement, I belive that history tells adifferent story as well, please provide some facts to backup that statement please......

12Alfa

[Devil-M]

As for a little chance ,, your assuming here and have no facts to back up that statement, I belive that history tells adifferent story as well, please provide some facts to backup that statement please......

[Edited on 15/6/2003 by 12Alfa]

Everything is an assumption- in all cases we are either abstracting a generalization from particulars, or deducing particulars from a general assumption. Conflicting viewpoints will conjecture differently from supposedly the same set of facts- and the example of attack helos wiping out a column of armored vehicles today may experience a reversal of fortune tommorow- it is more a matter of what one emphasizes at any given moment as a predictable pattern for all times, I suppose. But I do not see any historical examples of large scale tank vs helo combat in a wooded environment to test any hypothesis either way- there are of course the results calculated from relatively controlled training environments, if that is what folks are using to forecast behavior- but of course, the next conflict may demonstrate a different trend altogether from the previous, and vice versa- backwards and forwards, the events always shifting and moving despite what the facts may have suggested previously. It is true that recently a degree of relative parity could have been reached between both types of vehicles so that the outcome is no longer is as seemingly certain as once before. But certainty means death to the entertainment value of a computer game as well as in life- certainty must therefore die! Go forth now and propound this doctrine. I will return once I have been discredited. :angel:

[12Alfa]

Devil-M
I'd like to argue with you but, I rarely know what the hell you'r talkin about! You (and don't take this the wrong way) sound like a lawer, babbles alot but says very little. heheheheh

History has (i think) tells us that from the start of Anti-armour helo's they have not been used to the degree that the defenders of them have thought. We have not generally seen battles with helo's vs tanks where they wipe out colums of MBT's. (A-10 's hold that honor)They have been there in every battle from the begining but this famous "wiping out a whole tank company "has never happened. There has been many opertinuties for them to be deployed in this manner, but we have seen none. Why?

Most countries have the helo's for that reason but have when the country have been engaged in combat has not used them to wipe out "whole tank companys". Iran Iraq, 7day war,GW1,Chechenia, ext. all were actions there had conditions that would make one think that attack helo's would have been deployed in such a manner.

Or maybe it's the idea that keeps country's buying and deploying (but not using) attack helo's that keeps us tankers shaking in our hatches?

I respect any attack helo as i've been on ex with Corbra's and A-10's, the A-10's I could see and hear, the Ah-1's are for the most part unseen to me but I rest easy knowing that our ADAT's will find the hidden ones.

The cry of the defenders of the attack helo "we will destroy large numbers of tanks in a single volley" is a dream of the makers of such systems I think, and untill this battle happends I'll believe the history of tanks holding their own in battle.

A bird flying into a helo's critical part will result in a large object falling from the sky, where as any animal hitting a MBT anywhere will result in 5 more min's in the veh wash.

12Alfa
Lost but making good time (and hiding from that attack helo).

[Devil-M]

Devil-M
I'd like to argue with you but, I rarely know what the hell you'r talkin about! You (and don't take this the wrong way) sound like a lawer, babbles alot but says very little. heheheheh



That's interesting- what do I sound like on the rare occasion when you do know what I'm talking about? And how do you know that I sound like a lawyer? :o Anyone who understands me knows that my propositions are essentially nonsensical. All language is a mobile army of metonyms, metaphor, and transliteration. Facts in my view are not entirely the point: the value for what you can get away with in an argument is ultimately decisive. For compelling argument is the primer of all truths. :exclam:

But I shall return to the topic at hand. Most succinctly in my view:

Facts have yet to prove to me conclusively that anyone so far is necessarily correct in this discussion: facts first of all do not 'predict' the future. Assuming in the first place that there is such a thing as an undisputed fact (which is philosophically interesting because we might ask ourselves if something is factual even if no one 'knows' that it is), even so, facts do not infer other facts, and they do not in themselves suggest or interpolate anything- only people do that, which probably goes a long way to explain the presence of opposing forces taking issue with this owing to discerning viewpoints, and none of the arguments so far seem incredibly far fetched: it makes good sense to me either way- I see that people have argued that tanks are the natural prey of helicopter gunships, and I sense that people will argue although this again- on the other hand, there is also a good case to be made against this rule of thumb. However, unless Ssnake or anyone else would correct me here, I thought that eSim is operating under the assumption that the presence of any air arm including attack helos in Steel Beasts is unlikely because of a perceived balance issue in their favor. I have argued this myself, but also keep in mind that I was more of what you guys would have called a crunchy, and I am largely ignorant of the tank vs helicopter dynamic nowadays...

[12Alfa]

That's interesting- what do I sound like on the rare occasion when you do know what I'm talking about?

A long-winded lawer! ;)

And how do you know that I sound like a lawyer?

After sitting at the lawers for 1/2 hour and gettin no answer, i'll allways ask, and that is a YES or NO?. Then he will go on for another length of time where i will ask again, So that would be a yes or is it a no?
In the end he will break down and give me a simple answer (yes/no).

I've yet to see a direct answer from ya... so.....

This is all in FUN by the way. Short answere are best when dealing with tankers.


12Alfa

[Krans]

There are aspects of this thread that remind me of the M1A2 v. 150,000 Swedish muskateers thread... it all depends on how you set up the rather vague scenario of "tank v. helo."

As someone that has had the privledge of both tanking and heloing (if that's a word) (though, in fairness, it wasn't an attack helo), I'd have to say that at it's literal best, my money would stay with the attack helo. If you start throwing in Stinger teams and LAAD, then yes, a helo FORCE starts to lose ground against a tank FORCE, but until they start putting stingers on tanks (and it boggles my mind that they don't already), I think that a gunship will take a tank down at least six falls out of ten.

We were shooting down helos in SIMNET back in '90, too (and in COFT), but I think such opportunities would be the exception rather than the rule (if a tank stumbles into an LZ as the assault bubbas are flaring to land, 'frinstance, or one tank unit stumbles into the flank of some helos in a BP engaging their brethren).

Now I haven't heard the debriefs yet for all the Apache's that got smoked in the recent unpleasantness, but I would hope that a re-evaluation of tactics and SOPs will prevent such things in the future. I suspect it's much more of a mindset/TTP issue than a hardware issue.

I don't know of any helicopters that have been downed by misguided avians ingesting themselves into the compressor stage... I'm not saying it's never happened, but in general helos are designed to be down where it's a tad grittier and mesh is placed over the intakes to prevent too many FOD mishaps, and I've never heard of such an incident. Parts falling off, wires, cumulo-granite clouds, yes, but birds, no. Every helo we've got has redundant hydraulic systems and mulitple engines, and the newer birds have armor and bearingless systems that can operate sans lubricant if needed.

So, sure, if the tank gets the drop on the helo while it's hovering and not paying attention, then yes, the tank can paint a little picture of a cobra on the side of the turret, but by the same token, if the tank exposes itself to the little-bitty bump of a Longbow mast peeking over the treeline or ridge 6k away, the same is true for the rotor-trash. That's not to say it isn't getting better, but I don't think the smart money is on the tank.

[m1a1vha]

"Two, this is five. Sitrep."
"Five, two. Lots of... little tents with antennae... must be command control complex."
"What about these dug-in T-72s?... with the tarps over them."
"D'oh!"

what is that supposed to mean? i dont get it.

[dejawolf]

it's a food chain! with modifications.. the higher up it gets, the less accurate it becomes on the lower parts of the chain..
troops>tank>helo>airplane.


i think the reason helos doesn't eat birds, is because they move reasonably slow. unlike a jet, which goes bam! 1200km/h. that's half the speed of a bullet.
birds get time to react with helos.

[jaselong]

I would say that the question is not so much a food chain that a mutual support thing. No element is better than the other without the support of the other.
If you did ask what would you prefer to invade ("Liberate") a country with and had to choose 1000 troops, 1000 tanks, 1000 helos or 1000 aircraft what would you choose?
I would stick to the tank due to the versatility of armour speed firepower ability to dismount and hold large areas of ground. With bite and hold which seems to be the preferred option these days only ground vehicles can hold effectively. A swarm of helos or aircraft can only do so much especially with restrictions on being politically correct. Any city can withstand constant attacks from the air but eventually troops must go in to secure it therefore making airpower limited in any campaign.
As for a one on one well I would rather be sitting here than testing it out in a tank. But then again if a Grunt was the opposition “Forward right stick” SQUELCH “on”

[Hell_Hound]

It's a nasty comparison to make, especially vehicle vs vehicle.

Attack helos are pretty much optimized for killing tanks - they have excellent sensors, powerful anti-armor weapons and many are designed to engage either behind cover (I'm thinking Longbow here) or outside the range of the tank's weapons.

Tanks are optimized for making holes in other tanks, and for dominating ground. There's an assumption implicit in their design that they're staying out of the air battle, and that somebody else is going to protect them against air threats.

[ShotMagnet]

Agreed, comparing vehicles to one another, especially ones performing disparate missions, is like comparing dollars to kwatloos.
It's also worth mentioning, again, that no weapon operates by itself. The argument of 'which would you rather have..." then naming off exclusionary quantities of weapons, ignores the fact that, particularly nowadays, no weapon operates by itself, nor is it intended to.
'Combined arms' is called that for a reason. The various weapons and weapon-systems participating in the combination do so as part of the combination. They are the organs in a body, if you like. How they are used becomes more important than their intrinsic qualities.

Shot

[Rockape]

An interesting thread, and some valid points of view from both sides of the fence.

Yet I feel through all this discusion there is one element that seems to have been overlooked, a very critical element at that.

The Human Factor!!!

What is a Helo without a Pilot or W/O?
What is a Tank without a TC, Gunner, Loader and Driver?

Answer: 2x piles of useless weaponry.

It's not a case of whether The Helo can kill the Tank or Visa Versa, it's about the Human being operating those machines, their Training, Tactics and Doctorine, Its about Knowledge of your enviroment and of your opponent, their strengths and their "WEAKNESS" and about exploiting them both...

3 Star gave a perfect example of this in his reply in the other Forum...

A Helo Pilot who didn't know or realise his own weakness, A TC who had his head screwed on tight, did! result = 4 dead birds....!

Just my two pennies FWIW... ;)

[Krans]

"Two, this is five. Sitrep."
"Five, two. Lots of... little tents with antennae... must be command control complex."
"What about these dug-in T-72s?... with the tarps over them."
"D'oh!"

what is that supposed to mean? i dont get it.
Just a little conversation a platoon commander had with his XO back in Desert Storm... seems that young Lieutenants occasionally mis-identify dug-in tanks. Fortunately air strikes earlier in the day had convinced an entire T-72 battalion to unass their vehicles and either surrender or hoof it back North. Lucky for that young Lieutenant and the company he was lead element for, anyway... ;)

[Newbie-Olle]

... any animal hitting a MBT anywhere will result in 5 more min's in the veh wash.Are you not familiar with the anti tank rats used by USSR in WW2?
These were dropped from aircraft onto German tank laagers, where the rats entered the tank's engine compartments and chewed up some wires.
Electrical problems at best, engine fire more likely (if anybody tried to start the engine).

The German countermeasure was to employ anti rat cats...

Cheers
Olle

[Hell_Hound]

Are you not familiar with the anti tank rats used by USSR in WW2?
These were dropped from aircraft onto German tank laagers, where the rats entered the tank's engine...

Probably a food drop that accidentally fell on the Germans. ;)

[attackrat]

Are you not familiar with the anti tank rats used by USSR in WW2?
These were dropped from aircraft onto German tank laagers, where the rats entered the tank's engine compartments and chewed up some wires.
Electrical problems at best, engine fire more likely (if anybody tried to start the engine).

YEAH!!! That's RIGHT, fools!!! You don't f*ck with us rodents, y'hear?

:cool:

Olle, where on earth did you hear that? That's one of the best examples of biological warfare I've ever heard. It's almost whimsical.

[ShotMagnet]

I've never heard of the rats, but the Russians did use anti-tank dogs against the Germans (who called them Minenhunden).
The Russians would familiarize the animals with being around tanks by feeding them underneath one with the engine going. The dogs would become accustomed to the sight and smell and noise; and would form an association between tanks and food. The Russians would then strap explosives to the dogs, equipped with a tilt-rod which would detonate under the tank, presumably killing the tank. Not to mention the dog.
It apparently worked, at least well enough that the Germans started shooting at dogs who ran to their tanks.

Shot

[attackrat]

Pavlov, as applied to smart anti-tank weapons... I don't know whether to be impressed or disgusted.

Poor dogs :( .

[ShotMagnet]

I was disgusted, but not surprised.
On another note, there are accounts from the Pacific Theater, told from the first person, of mule skinners whose animals were used to haul dismantled artillery pieces, equipment, etc. The person giving the account said something about being instructed to eat the transport if their supplies ran out. This person talked about the time supplies ran out, and how they did everything else but eat their mules. And lived to tell about it. :D

[Floydii]

Is the dog thing really that terrible considering the Russians used men (usually from the gulags) to 'discover' the firing positions of german defences. Observers would sit back and take careful note as these troops where forced to a suicide charge that the Germans would inevetably mow down, revealing themselves in the process.

[ShotMagnet]

Well, war is hell for a lot of reasons.
Detecting mines by sending a company into the minefield and telling them to stomp hard is pretty brutal, too.
Maybe you do or see that sort of thing often enough, you don't give a rip about some dogs blowing themselves up to get a tank.
Still, we like to think of ourselves as civilized creatures, most especially when we do things that are contrary to civilized behavior.
War is hell, for a lot of reasons.

Shot

[Hackworth]

At least we have now moved away from using horses... those poor animals have seen as much war as man.

[Hackworth]

Shotmagnet - I love that pick for your avitar. Do you have a larger image of that Panther? And is it German or would this be from the early Arab-Israeli Wars?

[ShotMagnet]

http://www.3-d.modelmother.com

Hack,

Go to that site. This guy has stuff that will give you, to quote HH in another thread 'a monumental hard-on'. That's where I got the Panther. The site itself, as the name implies, contains CGI tanks.
The one in the avatar is Wehrmacht, I wasn't aware that the Israelis, or the Arabs for that matter, ever used Panthers.
I do have a larger picture, but you'd probably get it quicker from the source than from me and my 56K send-it-when-I-feel-like-it dial-up service.
If you go there, tell Gary Nemeth, the guy who does the CGI, that you like his stuff. He'll appreciate the compliment.
If you still want me to send it to you, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.
If you want to use the image for your avatar, feel free, I won't burst into flames. Again, quoting another thread 'it's an avatar, not a toothbrush'.

Shot

[dejawolf]

hmm, you got the adress wrong. the correct adress is:
http://www.3d-modelmother.com/
:)

[ShotMagnet]

Thanks for the catch, DW. Was quoting from memory, always a mistake.

Shot

[Newbie-Olle]

Olle, where on earth did you hear that?I got it from Frank Chadwick, IIRC, you know he who's pretty sharp on WW2 history and have designed several excellent wargames.
It was posted it on the Command Decision mailing list (http://www.command-decision.com/) a couple of years ago.
It's possible I've saved the details, but will take several hours for me to find.That's one of the best examples of biological warfare I've ever heard. It's almost whimsical.Biological warfare? Naahh...

Cheers
Olle

[attackrat]

Well, it might not be pure bio warfare, but it's still pretty cool. That's right up there with the Greek (or Egyptian? can't remember) naval tactic of throwing clay pots full of venomous snakes onto enemy vessels... :shock: :twisted: