ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rick O'Brien) (01/19/89)
There are several historical examples of well trained troops using 'inferior' equipment to defeat troops with 'superior' equipment. The US Army in WWII with the Sherman tank is a prime example. The various German models were better armored and armed. In fact there were more Allied tanks destroyed on the western front than German dued to tank action, not air action. I don't recall the books I read this in but it was in more than one. Also, the Sherman tank in the hands of the Israelis soundly defeated the Arab forces, equipped with more modern Soviet tanks, in the '67 wars. (The background write up in 'Arab-Israeli Wars' war game from, I think, Avalon-Hill gives a good summary of this entire discussion of 'Quality vs. Quantity') The whole key seems to be well trained and motivated troops.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/20/89)
>Tanks are far from obsolete. Until something else comes along >with their combination of firepower, mobility, and staying power, >they will continue to have a vital mission. Firepower, okay. Mobility, okay. Staying power, approaching zero as infantry anti-tank weapons get better. Tanks were cost-effective when the weapons capable of disabling them were artillery and other tanks, i.e. things that the average infantry squad didn't carry. The mission remains important, but tanks are increasingly incapable of doing it at acceptable cost. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu [moderator's reply: When I referred to staying power, I imply a bit more than survivability, though that is certainly a major part of it. I also include things like loiter time; aircraft pack lots of firepower, but have short loiter times on the battlefield. If you duck long enough, the planes go away; tanks don't. Further, tanks offer improved survivability versus more generic weapons; HE artillery, rifle fire, chemical rounds, even nuclear/biological attacks, relative to infantry. Finally, improvements such as Chobham armor and reactive armor have put a big unknown in the tank/antitank equation. Both systems improve survivability against HEAT munitions, although the exact improvement has not been publicized; certainly, the Pentagon claims that the Soviet reactive armor jeopardizes the effectiveness of our TOW and Dragon, while LAW is already a joke against modern MBT's. Methinks it very premature to write off tanks just yet... - Bill ]
daveb@uunet.UU.NET (David Collier-Brown) (01/25/89)
>From article <3300@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > Firepower, okay. Mobility, okay. Staying power, approaching zero as > infantry anti-tank weapons get better. Tanks were cost-effective when > the weapons capable of disabling them were artillery and other tanks, > i.e. things that the average infantry squad didn't carry. The mission > remains important, but tanks are increasingly incapable of doing it at > acceptable cost. > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Well, I'm unsure about that. The infantry weapons I'm familiar with are effective at rifle ranges[1] against thin bits of tank, not main armour. This makes the survivability of the tank high, but admittedly doesn't say anything about its ability to function *as a tank* if somebody splits a track with his mine or rocket launcher. Personally, I'm still worried about the ability of a tank to stay hull-up and shoot back at me while I'm trying to get a shot on target with a shoulder-launched missle. First OR second shot. Tank-as-such or tank-as-damaged-pillbox. The whole idea of a big steel can shooting at me with a cannon makes me queasy... I'm far less impressed with APCs and the scout vehicles that I expect to deal with along with the tanks. I strongly suspect they're going to be fair game for man-packed weapons. --dave (late of the 2nd Eeks & Squeeks[2]) c-b [1] I'm a lousy shot: 300 yards with the magazine pressed firmly to the ground. Even worse with a rocket launcher (maybe 10') or carl gustav (maybe 400 yards). On the other hand, if we ever reintroduce the 60mm mortar, I can make APC owners hate me about out to the maximum range of the projectile... I therefore assume something in the order of 200-500 yards for close combat with man-pack weapons. [2] The 2nd battalion, the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment, part of the Canadian Army (Militia), whish is a reserve unit these days. -- David Collier-Brown. | yunexus!lethe!dave Interleaf Canada Inc. | 1550 Enterprise Rd. | He's so smart he's dumb. Mississauga, Ontario | --Joyce C-B