The comment at the end clearly comes from you.ljadw wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 10:48Source = Oryx which gave these figures
The end of tanks as we know it?
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
The ukranians have more use for all the weapons they get. Russia is so heavily engaged in the Ukraine it cannot attack NATO.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 00:21Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64294635
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Your personal opinion.ljadw wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 16:55The entire civilised world ???mezsat2 wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 10:05Anti-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.
Most people are unaware of Russian attacks against civilian infrastructure and most of those who are aware of it ,do not care .
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
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.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 22:15It 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.Tom Peters wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 22:06I dont see why sending 10 Challengers would do much good..............10 tanks wont accomplish much.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
You are scared they actually are and will be a danger to your russian friends.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑15 Jan 2023, 02:53The 'super-tank' mindset I mentioned earlier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjaY6UV ... ForcesNews
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
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.Cult Icon wrote: ↑15 Jan 2023, 15:03Germany’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."
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:
https://archive.is/ynlSK
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
In August 1941 Guderian asked for new engines for his tanks as a big part of them were immobilized because of engine problems .Tom Peters wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 03:55Got 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 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 .
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
A reconstruction of Kursk battle was performed in a university gym of Samara region, Russia, in the end of 2022.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
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.Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
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.
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.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
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.ljadw wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 11:09In August 1941 Guderian asked for new engines for his tanks as a big part of them were immobilized because of engine problems .Tom Peters wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 03:55Got 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 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 .
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
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.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 11:35The old NATO plan to stop a Soviet Tank Attack-Do what the Germans did and hope it works this time!
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
He does not understand the latter.gebhk wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 13:00And 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.Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside