The end of tanks as we know it?

Discussions on other historical eras.
Locked
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#421

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 10:50

ljadw wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 10:48
Tom Peters wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 03:56
ljadw wrote:
24 Jan 2023, 12:31
ONE of the claims from Oryx
Ukraine tank losses
destroyed 265
abandoned 16
captured 144
and a big part of the destroyed tanks were destroyed by non combat losses as accidents, engine problems, fuel and ammunition problems, shortage of spare parts ....
Source ?

Mad Dog
Source = Oryx which gave these figures
The comment at the end clearly comes from you.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#422

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 10:53

Michael Kenny wrote:
17 Jan 2023, 00:21
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64294635
The ukranians have more use for all the weapons they get. Russia is so heavily engaged in the Ukraine it cannot attack NATO.


User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#423

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 10:55

ljadw wrote:
23 Jan 2023, 11:04
The mission of a tank is not to fight against an other tank .
Not its main mission but it still is the most powerfull opponent of another tank.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#424

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 10:56

ljadw wrote:
19 Jan 2023, 16:55
mezsat2 wrote:
18 Jan 2023, 10:05
Anti-aircraft missiles like S-300 and 400 were not designed for ground attack and have a 1-2 km discrepancy in this role.

Nevertheless, Putin is wasting millions of dollars of missiles on militarily insignificant targets- and pissing off the entire civilized world
against him in the process.
The entire civilised world ???
Most people are unaware of Russian attacks against civilian infrastructure and most of those who are aware of it ,do not care .
Your personal opinion.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#425

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 10:59

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Jan 2023, 22:15
Tom Peters wrote:
11 Jan 2023, 22:06
I dont see why sending 10 Challengers would do much good..............10 tanks wont accomplish much.

It is part of the propaganda war. High tech UK wonder-weapons are going to show them there Russkie's a thing or two. A faint echo of the old gunboat diplomacy mindset. Still won't be too bad as it will be Ukranians who will get to die in them when reality bites.
No propaganda. Every help is welcome. Russia and its fifth column in the west fear the western tanks. That is why they make so much fuss about it.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#426

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 11:01

Michael Kenny wrote:
15 Jan 2023, 02:53
The 'super-tank' mindset I mentioned earlier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjaY6UV ... ForcesNews
You are scared they actually are and will be a danger to your russian friends. :lol:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#427

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 11:03

Cult Icon wrote:
15 Jan 2023, 15:03
Germany’s Leopard 2 Tank in Syria Was Beaten Badly in Battle. Why?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... -why-78441

"Germany’s Leopard 2 main battle tank has a reputation as one of the finest in the world, competing for that distinction with proven designs such as the American M1 Abrams and the British Challenger 2. However, that reputation for nigh-invincibility has faced setbacks on Syrian battlefields, and placed Berlin in a uniquely awkward national-level dispute with Turkey, its fellow NATO member."

"This was shockingly illustrated in December 2016 when evidence emerged that numerous Leopard 2s had been destroyed in intense fighting over ISIS-held Al-Bab—a fight that Turkish military leaders described as a “trauma,” according to Der Spiegel. A document published online listed ISIS as apparently having destroyed ten of the supposedly invincible Leopard 2s; five reportedly by antitank missiles, two by mines or IEDs, one to rocket or mortar fire, and the others to more ambiguous causes.

These photos confirm the destruction of at least eight. One shows a Leopard 2 apparently knocked out by a suicide VBIED—an armored kamikaze truck packed with explosives. Another had its turret blown clean off. Three Leopard wrecks can be seen around the same hospital near Al-Bab, along with several other Turkish armored vehicles. It appears the vehicles were mostly struck the more lightly protected belly and side armor by IEDs and AT-7 Metis and AT-5 Konkurs antitank missiles.

Undoubtedly, the manner in which the Turkish Army employed the German tanks likely contributed to the losses. Rather than using them in a combined arms force alongside mutually supporting infantry, they were deployed to the rear as long-range fire-support weapons while Turkish-allied Syrian militias stiffened with Turkish special forces led the assaults. Isolated on exposed firing positions without adequate nearby infantry to form a good defensive perimeter, the Turkish Leopards were vulnerable to ambushes. The same poor tactics have led to the loss of numerous Saudi Abrams tanks in Yemen, as you can see in this video."

Image

Image

Image

Been there, done that. Also, in WW2 there were similar such ideas.

What is needed ON BOTH SIDES are more effective combat formations that can integrate combined arms and reliably break into the operational depths. Tanks are big targets in modern warfare. Having a Ukrainian raise another conscript brigade of middle aged men, give it a few weeks of training, and commanded by reservists who had 2 months of NATO training, and then calling it 'airmobile' 'airborne assault' 'mountain assault' is not it.

Russian weapon that knocked out Leopard 2s:

Image

https://archive.is/ynlSK
Wishful thinking as always. These reservists you so despise have done a lot of damage to your russian friends. You fear the delivery of western tanks. :lol: :lol:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#428

Post by ljadw » 25 Jan 2023, 11:09

Tom Peters wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 03:55
ljadw wrote:
24 Jan 2023, 12:15
gebhk wrote:
23 Jan 2023, 15:49
another tank has been the most effective means of mounting a tank-killing weapon.
That is not so .
Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
Got any sources for that ?

how about this one:

Alvin Coox, "Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in WW2"

Figure 1: Tank Casualties by source:
Mortar and Misc: 6%
Hollow Charge: 7.5%
Non-enemy: 13%
Mines: 20%
Gunfire: 54%

Figure 5: Calibre of Enemy Gunfire (% of total):
light: 6%
misc med: 5%
75mm: 36%
88mm: 50%
heavy: 3%

most gunfire if from direct fire, non-artillery. The minority of losses from non-combat.

Back to you.

Mad Dog
In August 1941 Guderian asked for new engines for his tanks as a big part of them were immobilized because of engine problems .
In June/July 1941 a very big part of the Soviet tank divisions collapsed before meeting the Germans, because of mechanical problems .
Tank engines stopped to function after a short time .
Most of Rommel's tanks in NA who landed in March 1941 were out before the Winter ,not because of enemy fire .
Montgomery's attacks in Normandy were stopped by German artillery .
Tanks are a combination of cavalry and artillery .The more the emphasis is laid on the cavalry part ( mobility and speed ) ,the more weaken becomes the artillery part ( fire power ) .Or the inverse .
In the second part of the world the Germans emphasized the artillery part (Panzerjäger ) but still continued to call their panzer divisions panzer divisions .

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#429

Post by Michael Kenny » 25 Jan 2023, 11:35

Aida1 wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 11:01

You are scared they actually are and will be a danger to your russian friends. :lol:
The old NATO plan to stop a Soviet Tank Attack-Do what the Germans did and hope it works this time!

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#430

Post by wm » 25 Jan 2023, 12:50

A reconstruction of Kursk battle was performed in a university gym of Samara region, Russia, in the end of 2022.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#431

Post by gebhk » 25 Jan 2023, 13:00

Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
And a non-sequitur to what I wrote, which was that a tank has been the most effective way of mounting a tank killing weapon in the last 100 years or so.

Here's a thought experiment - you are going to fight an enemy tank with, let's say, a 75mm A/T gun. What do you think would give you the best chances of destroying the enemy tank and, crucially, surviving youurself? The gun mounted on two heels and pulled by two horses, on the back of a truck, on a self propelled turretless chassis or in a tank with a rotating turret? Answers on the back of a postcard, as they say. :wink:

Note the critical words which you are ignoring - effective and tank killing. We are not talking of breakdowns we are talking of destroying tanks in combat.
Last edited by gebhk on 25 Jan 2023, 13:18, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#432

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 13:07

ljadw wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 11:09
Tom Peters wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 03:55
ljadw wrote:
24 Jan 2023, 12:15
gebhk wrote:
23 Jan 2023, 15:49
another tank has been the most effective means of mounting a tank-killing weapon.
That is not so .
Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
Got any sources for that ?

how about this one:

Alvin Coox, "Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in WW2"

Figure 1: Tank Casualties by source:
Mortar and Misc: 6%
Hollow Charge: 7.5%
Non-enemy: 13%
Mines: 20%
Gunfire: 54%

Figure 5: Calibre of Enemy Gunfire (% of total):
light: 6%
misc med: 5%
75mm: 36%
88mm: 50%
heavy: 3%

most gunfire if from direct fire, non-artillery. The minority of losses from non-combat.

Back to you.

Mad Dog
In August 1941 Guderian asked for new engines for his tanks as a big part of them were immobilized because of engine problems .
In June/July 1941 a very big part of the Soviet tank divisions collapsed before meeting the Germans, because of mechanical problems .
Tank engines stopped to function after a short time .
Most of Rommel's tanks in NA who landed in March 1941 were out before the Winter ,not because of enemy fire .
Montgomery's attacks in Normandy were stopped by German artillery .
Tanks are a combination of cavalry and artillery .The more the emphasis is laid on the cavalry part ( mobility and speed ) ,the more weaken becomes the artillery part ( fire power ) .Or the inverse .
In the second part of the world the Germans emphasized the artillery part (Panzerjäger ) but still continued to call their panzer divisions panzer divisions .
You clearly understand nothing about tanks. You do not see the difference between a tank breaking down which can be repaired and a tank being killed. And panzerjäger are not really tanks in the strict sense of the word as they have no revolving turret.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#433

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 13:10

Michael Kenny wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 11:35
Aida1 wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 11:01

You are scared they actually are and will be a danger to your russian friends. :lol:
The old NATO plan to stop a Soviet Tank Attack-Do what the Germans did and hope it works this time!
Hardly.NATO plan was hardly what german WW2 commanders would like to do. Actually german ww2 commanders knew very well how to deal with russian tank attacks and with the resources NATO has would do very well at it.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#434

Post by Aida1 » 25 Jan 2023, 13:11

gebhk wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 13:00
Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
And a non-sequitur to what I wrote, which was that a tank has been the most effective way of mounting a tank killing weapon in the last 100 years or so.

Here's a thought experiment - you are going to fight an enemy tank with, let's say, a 75mm A/T gun. What do you think would give you the best chances destroying the enemy tank and, crucially, survibing youurself? The gun mounted opn two heels and pulled by two horses, on the back of a truck, on a self propelled turretless chassis or in a tank with a rotating turret? Answers on the back of a postcard as they say. :wink:

Note the critical words which you are ignoring - effective and tank killing. We are not talking of breakdowns we are talking of destroying tanks in combat.
He does not understand the latter.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

#435

Post by Michael Kenny » 25 Jan 2023, 13:27

Aida1 wrote:
25 Jan 2023, 13:10
Actually german ww2 commanders knew very well how to deal with russian tank attacks
Really? How did that work out for them?


https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-cont ... zow_44.jpg

Locked

Return to “Other eras”