Jump to content

Food for thought


Bond_Villian
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
46 minutes ago, Nike-Ajax said:

So many people have tried for so long to make the absolute claim that tanks are absolutely outdated, that I will not even begin to repeat their obvious false claims. 

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2022 at 2:52 AM, DarkAngel said:

If you read about the Egyptian effectiveness with Malyutka in the 1973 war you will also read the number of test fires that were required to become proficient with them. 

 

The Egyptians made wide use of simulators. See 13:39 in the video I posted on another thread:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

spacer.png

 

Ahhh ... how very rhetorical of you. 😊

Ok ... I will nab:

I will not accept the  false premise that the tank is outdated as the basis of an argument because I believe doing so renders it logically unsound.

Every one who have tried to put the tank in its early grave since ... 1917 ... have been proven wrong. They have never accepted responsibility for their circular logic nor for the false premises of their arguments and worse choices.

But one relative recent example is the Netherlands, which abolished their tanks and sold them off to anyone who wanted them, including Finland (so good for Finland obviously). But ended up leasing German tanks because ... who knew ... the tank wasnt outdated. 

And thats respectfully and unpolemically about all the energy I will expend on that. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't mean to suggest that your logic was flawed; I was mocking the same people that you were criticizing.

 

I fully concur with your observations that the death of the tank has been greatly exaggerated, repeatedly (and somehow the same flawed logic is less often observed when it comes to other weapon system pairings, such as SAMs and jets, MANPADs and helicopters, rifles and infantry, fragmentation explosives and trucks, counterbattery radar and artillery, ...)

 

In defense of the Dutch, the responsible defense minister fully acknowledged on public record that selling off the tanks was a capability loss. The argument at the time was not that the tank was obsolete, quite the contrary. It was however the observation that the Dutch parliament was highly unlikely to approve higher defense funding while at the same time - the thinking at the time was still centered on expeditionary warfare, not so much NATO territorial defense - also unwilling to approve of out of area use of MBTs (unlike Canada, which had sold the "millstone" of old Leopard 1s for scrap, but then discovered that they needed tanks in Afghanistan, resulting in immediate reversal of the decision).

So, it was the combination of these two factors that resulted in the Dutch conclusion that maintaining an MBT fleet was a very costly activity for no appreciable "return on investment" (with the sole exception of NATO territorial defense, which was deemed highly implausible by most politicians in many European states).

Needless to say, like on the stock market for every shortseller there's someone going long (Finland, in that case). In the financial sector you lose only money. In defense, the price can be much, much higher. But that's something that most generations have to learn through experience, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

I didn't mean to suggest that your logic was flawed; I was mocking the same people that you were criticizing.

 

I fully concur with your observations that the death of the tank has been greatly exaggerated, repeatedly (and somehow the same flawed logic is less often observed when it comes to other weapon system pairings, such as SAMs and jets, MANPADs and helicopters, rifles and infantry, fragmentation explosives and trucks, counterbattery radar and artillery, ...)

 

In defense of the Dutch, the responsible defense minister fully acknowledged on public record that selling off the tanks was a capability loss. The argument at the time was not that the tank was obsolete, quite the contrary. It was however the observation that the Dutch parliament was highly unlikely to approve higher defense funding while at the same time - the thinking at the time was still centered on expeditionary warfare, not so much NATO territorial defense - also unwilling to approve of out of area use of MBTs (unlike Canada, which had sold the "millstone" of old Leopard 1s for scrap, but then discovered that they needed tanks in Afghanistan, resulting in immediate reversal of the decision).

So, it was the combination of these two factors that resulted in the Dutch conclusion that maintaining an MBT fleet was a very costly activity for no appreciable "return on investment" (with the sole exception of NATO territorial defense, which was deemed highly implausible by most politicians in many European states).

Needless to say, like on the stock market for every shortseller there's someone going long (Finland, in that case). In the financial sector you lose only money. In defense, the price can be much, much higher. But that's something that most generations have to learn through experience, sadly.

 

I can see no flaw or gap in neither your premises, arguments nor conclusions. 

In short: 

I concur with your well formulated reply.

icegif-71.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why we're even discussing "the tank" being "obsolete" or why anyone has mentioned it being a possibility.  If you took World War 1 era tanks or even interwar era tanks onto a battlefield where enemy infantry had late WW2 era anti-tank weapons, meaning powerful anti-tank guns, infantry anti-tank weapons, aircraft with anti-tank weapons, etc etc etc...Well, you might be convinced that "The Tank" had been made obsolete, and present the evidence of "the tank" getting it's ass kicked as your reason.

 

But just like the anti-tank weapons, the tank evolved, and 1945 era tanks were very capable of dealing with 1945 era tank threats.

 

So anti-tank threats got better, and we were all sure that the ATGM had spelled the end of the tank.

 

And then it didn't.

 

So to me this is nothing more than just another episode of "here we go again".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Easy, it lasts until it goes bad.

I think you have picked the best moment to corner the canned pumpkin meat market. It's going to grow well above market average for a coming supercycle. I can but recommend everybody to go big and to go long on cooled pumpkin can futures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Easy, it lasts until it goes bad.

I think you have picked the best moment to corner the canned pumpkin meat market. It's going to grow well above market average for a coming supercycle. I can but recommend everybody to go big and to go long on cooled pumpkin can futures.

Damn, and here I am, sitting on truckload of pork belly. I thought this would be the next great thing on the market! 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2022 at 2:13 AM, Ssnake said:

So, you're advocating cannibalism, I see. ;)

I'm advocating separate, safe, blow-off panel protected ammunition storage, additional measures to ensure crew safety in the event that the armor is penetrated, thicker roof armor, Leopard 2A5/6/7 style wedge armor on the front of Abrams turrets, development of crew-safe ERA that minimizes the amount of ERA generated frag that the crew may be exposed to, rooftop mounting of said ERA, emphasis on hatches capable of providing an overhead cover protection mode for the crew, and new active protection systems capable of dealing with terminal dive top attack munitions.  It may perhaps even be worth looking into other countermeasures like flare launchers of some kind that might help deal with weapons like the Javelin in the event the crew knows one is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

Damn, and here I am, sitting on truckload of pork belly. I thought this would be the next great thing on the market! 😞

Got pork belly, make bacon.  Easy to do and always a seller. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, P Lakowski said:

Can the LEOPARD II turret be redesigned so the hydraulic system is relocated ; so the entire width of THE REAR turret can be used as ammo bunker with 30 SHELLS + blowout panels?

 

I'm sure Krauss-Maffei Wegmann could do it - if you paid them enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First couple comments covered it, I haven't read the rest, but... "hey, kids- can you say "Combined Arms" and "Cross Unit Training"?

 

My mind also goes to the Desert Storm when an M-2A2 used its 25MM to shoot down an Iraqi ATGM in mid flight, then take out the BMP that fired it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

I'm advocating separate, safe, blow-off panel protected ammunition storage, additional measures to ensure crew safety in the event that the armor is penetrated, thicker roof armor, Leopard 2A5/6/7 style wedge armor on the front of Abrams turrets, development of crew-safe ERA that minimizes the amount of ERA generated frag that the crew may be exposed to, rooftop mounting of said ERA, emphasis on hatches capable of providing an overhead cover protection mode for the crew, and new active protection systems capable of dealing with terminal dive top attack munitions.  It may perhaps even be worth looking into other countermeasures like flare launchers of some kind that might help deal with weapons like the Javelin in the event the crew knows one is coming.

 

Im not suggesting that the 'Tank' is obsolete (and i dont think the author of the topic video is either), but obviously all of the things you mention here add costs to an already expensive platform, which (from a procurement perspective at least) is a factor in the viability of said platform, especially if/when there are cheap, mass produce-able anti-tank weapons and drones to consider.

I also understand that combined arms is 'a thing'. Just sayin ;)

 

Edited by Bond_Villian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, mpow66m said:

They should do it for the sheer joy of knowing it needs to be done.

I'm sure, that will get you a hearty laughter at the next KNDS's board of director meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got "THE RUSSIAN WAY OF WAR", its good but not familiar of some of the terms... RUSSIAN ARCHIVES...but they reference"tactical combat being even more destructive than the past and would be characterized by fragmented or non-linear combat" and 'zones of combat replaced with FEBA  +  FLOT ...any idea how this differs from USSR doctrine?

Edited by P Lakowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

and as i think it was Mark that pointed out that a lot of those short videos give no context etc...

I really like the Austrian army's school or academy's videos which i am sure is duplicated in a lot of other places but not made public, because it gives background and cobles many of the sensational shart videos together in context.

Also we have to remember that the time the Russians chose to attack was prolly the stupidest time of the year for attacking we have prolly all seen the quagmire that both the soviets' and German forces got into on the eastern front during WW2 twice a year where the fighting got booged down to a virtual standstill because all vehicles sink into the ground because of mud its better today because of roads but those are only channelizing the fight and makes it easier for the defenders as the russians are more or less stuck on the roads.

 

 

 

MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/27/2022 at 7:14 PM, Gibsonm said:

 

Also not much evidence of APS in use on Russian vehicles, limited combined arms (so not much suppression of ATGM / SRAAW firing positions, etc.).

 

But again as I think Ssnake mentioned elsewhere the video feeds are clipped to maximise the drama / message. Not much context (before / after, what other vehicles are doing, etc.).

 

In short the propaganda on both sides is doing what its designed to do (maximise the enemy's weaknesses / minimise friendly weaknesses).

 

there is a guy on telegram i think that is showing those vids un edited and it crazy....those atgm crews are getting destroyed fast in a lot of them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, will14 said:

there is a guy on telegram i think that is showing those vids un edited and it crazy....those atgm crews are getting destroyed fast in a lot of them..

lol sure,

videos on a telegramm chanel, will be as "objective" as the Ukr.-defence ministry uploads on youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...