Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: top 10 tanks in the world!!!
Hong-Xing    8/12/2003 9:07:05 AM
i think it would be this t-90 (rus) m1a2 (usa) t-98 (chi) m1a1 (usa) Challenger 2 (bri) t-95 black hawk (rus) al khalid (chi) merkeva (bra) arjun (ind) t-90||| (chi)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Clausewitz    RE: cavalry vs infantry joe6pack   1/21/2004 12:32:59 PM
Modern PGM makes it difficult to differ what is infantry and what is cavalry. Most folks on this board are just thinking in line of sight weapons. But the real revolution (O.K. Mike_Golf - an ever turning evolution)is the combination of modern observation tools (UAV, modern optronics), situational awareness (net centric warfare) and none line of sight PGM. They can be delivered by mortars, classic artillery, warplanes, helicopters, rockets, ...). So a 4X4 or a small tracked armored vehicle with modern observation tools (with a possibility to elevate optronics some yards so you can hide behind trees and houses; maybe a small own UAV)don't need to fire directly on a target (for example a tank). They just need to give this information to the rear (with a realtime link) and remain stealthy. The target will vanish. It's crew will never know what hit them. If a lot of targets will appear realtime linked commanders can decide to use long range PGM en masse. All targets will be destroyed. What are these observation/PGM teams? Infantry? Cavalry (thea are mobile)? Artillery (firing from the rear?). Even deteced infatry (light infanty) will be doomed by the use of cluster ammo. What would you call a observation vehicle combined with a realtime linked buddy verhicle in the rear for the delivera of fiber optic missiles? They do the job of infantry, cavalry and artillery. Breakthrough and holding ground by observation and fire (infantry). To persue the enemy and exploit the breakthrough by observation and fire (cavalry). To deliver long range fire (artillery). So we learn that in the moment classic combined arms with tanke will work perfectly against second line states. But it will not work against first line states. And for the Yom Kippur War: A lot of israli tankes on the golan heights and on the sinai had been destroyed by arab/russion tanks (dig in egyptian tanks after crossing the cannel). But israli crews most said that they was hit by ATGM because they were ashamed to be destoyed by an equal. The tank only concept of the isralis worked on the golan heights (defence) and failed at the sinai (offence). With huge quantities of artillery (tube and rocket) infantry in the desert will be doomed. Just with ATGM and in duel situations infantry has no chance against combined arms just using line of sight weapons. Indirect delivered PGM will change thís. If you can counter the PGN by interrupting the neccesary realtime links (electronic countermeasures, killer UAV guiding themselves against emitters) we will be back in the tank business again.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE: cavalry vs infantry   1/21/2004 12:38:04 PM
"Then we’ll play king-of-the-hill. Sure I’ll take plenty of casualties, but I bet you a pint I’d win" But right there you are setting the condition - "a fixed defense" Again, that arguement is the same as "I'll take my infantry square circa 1815, support it with artillery and those pesky cavalry will get crushed if they attack us." Exactly correct. However, how do you plan on moving from that position without a cavalry screen? Or on the other hand.. My armor force says screw attacking your hill, I'm gonna swing wide of and run rampant over your supply lines and cause havoc where ever I roam (except on your hill). I'm with Mike Golf on this - combined arms is the best answer.. You are best equipped to handle any given situation rather than just specific ones.
 
Quote    Reply

TrueNorth    RE: cavalry vs infantry - joe6pack   1/21/2004 12:59:01 PM
No condition, we both try to take and hold the hill objective simultaneously. I agree with you that static defense is disadvantageous, since you lend the initiative to your foe to outflank you. The contest would be mobile for both of us.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE: cavalry vs infantry - joe6pack   1/21/2004 1:21:28 PM
TrueNorth wrote: "No condition, we both try to take and hold the hill objective simultaneously." I wouldn't bother trying to take the hill. Instead I would deny it's use to you and concentrate and the destruction of your team as a viable operational unit. By the way, an Armored Cavalry Regiment is a true combined arms team. Heavy mortars, infantry and tanks are integrated at the troop (company) level. The regiment owns a full battery of SP Artillery, an engineer company and an attack helicopter troop. With these assets they would use the full range of Air-Land Battle Doctrine against you, including deep strike, deception, manuever and direct fire. Your artillery assetts would be hammered the first time they fired by Apache Longbows firing from cover. Then my artillery would start methodically working your units over, which would be under continuous observation by my scouts and helicopters. At the same time, one of my cavalry squadrons would be moving deep to strike your logistical assetts while my other two cavalry squadrons would be finding and fixing your infantry. Your ATGM's would cause some damage, but since their flight time is 15 seconds, and a tank or Bradley's main gun flight time is two seconds, once I discover your positions you're in trouble. Yes, from 4,000 meters to 3,500 meters you can engage me while I can't engage you. Except with artillery and helicopters, ooooops, forgot I'd have those didn't you? And by the way, my tanks and bradleys are going to be move those 500 meters in about 90 seconds. So, while you are under fire by cluster munitions and Apaches firing rockets how many of my tanks and bradleys will you take out before I can return direct fire? You see, the US Army tried this in the late 1980's. They built a motorized division, the 9th Infantry. It was all humvee's with TOW's and artillery. I was in the 33rd Armor at the time, stationed at Fort Lewis as an I Corps asset. The 9th was also at Fort Lewis. We were used as opfor to help prove the motorized tactics. We regularly took one tank battalion, augmented it with an infantry company and an artillery battery and played against a brigade of the 9th. And we regularly ripped them to pieces, with fairly minimal effort. An ACR would not find it all that difficult disposing of your 20,000 infantry with ATGM's and artillery. Now, if we truly want to discuss how to change those tactics to account for 10,000 meter non LOS PGM's and fire and forget weapons (which aren't in anyone's inventory yet, by the way) we can. But that isn't what you said you would do. I can wargame it all day and show you that you're idea is wrong. Or I can point out that the US Army no longer has an infantry equipped like you describe because it was too heavy to be effective for rapid strategic deployment and too light to stand up to heavy combined forces. The day of the tank is not done, it's just a more dangerous environment that requires appropriate tactics and operational art.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE: cavalry vs infantry   1/21/2004 2:05:58 PM
Oh yeah Sherwood, one last comment. Do you think that when you pay $5 billion USD, give or take, for a US Armored Cavalry Regiment you are not getting some of the best leadership and tactics training in the world for that price? That is a significant piece of the cost. For some examples: Every officer is a graduate of ROTC, West Point or OCS. Every platoon leader has been through Officer's Basic Course. Every troop commander has been through Officer's Advanced Course. Most have been to Airborne and Ranger school. The Field Grade Officers have been to a variety of schools, including the War College and School for Advanced Military Studies. Every major and colonel has experience as a company commander and as a member of a battalion staff. The NCO's have all been to their rank appropriate schools, many are airborne or ranger qualified. Every troop has a master gunner. There is also a master gunner in every squadron staff and on the regimental staff. The platoon sergeants have 10+ years of experience, as do the master gunners. First sergeants and sergeant majors have 15 to 18 years experience, minimum. Every troop in the unit conducts at least two live fire qualifications per year, as well as at least one platoon live fire annually. They conduct a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks of manuever training at the troop level, along with at least one day of individual task hands on training per week while in garrison. The squadrons conduct two training exercises per year for a minimum of 3 weeks. The regiment rotates to the National Training Center for 4 weeks once every 18 months. The squadron and regimental staffs do sandtable and computer exercises monthly. The troops and squadrons exercise in battle simulators about once every 6 weeks. The tank and bradley crews use the conduct of fire simulators on a weekly basis to train gunnery skills. This all assumes the unit is not deployed of course, in which case they are essentially training or operating 7 days a week. Each tank and bradley commander/gunner combination has qualified in gunnery together a minimum of one time. Your emphasis on training is not the huge advantage you think it is. You get all of this for the basic price tag of an American Armored Cavalry Regiment. Not to mention: 120 M1A2 Abrams 150 M3A2 Bradleys 18 4.2 inch mortars in APC's 6 155mm M109 howitzers 8 Apaches 8 Kiowa scout helicopters All the support teams (mechanics, trucks, commo, etc.) to support this team in combat. I spent many years in the 11th ACR (Blackhorse). We could have easily stood toe to toe with any Soviet Guards Division and slugged it out.
 
Quote    Reply

TrueNorth    RE: cavalry vs infantry   1/21/2004 2:51:30 PM
I like stout. See you on the Tac Ops site.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:To northern guyand joe 6pak only...AKS...   1/21/2004 5:39:32 PM
AKS writes that comparing Berlin and Iraq is pointless. I wasn't comparing Berlin to Iraq. I was comparing Russian war doctrine as evidenced in Berlin with that of the U.S. in Iraq. The Russians with an immeasurably superior strategic, tactical, and manpower situation available to them took two hundred times more casualties taking one city than the Americans had in Iraq with an inferior strategic, tactical and manpower situation presented to them. The decision by the Russians not to use their advantages sufficiently to avoid high casualties was a choice on the part of the Russian leadership. The decision by the Americans to have the equipment, trained personnel and doctrine to overcome their disadvantage in such a way as to ensure low casualties was a choice on the part of the American leadership. The choice the Russians made in Berlin was characteristic of the Russian war doctrine. The choice the Americans made in Iraq was characteristic of the American war doctrine. It's as simple as that. The question is not whether there are similarities between Berlin and Iraq. The issue is whether there were any reasonable battle plans availalble to the Russians that would have reduced casualties? The answer is _yes_. Not only that it's hard to see how they could come up with a plan that resulted in more casualties. Alternatively, were there any reasonable battle plans available to the Americans that could have reduced their casualties? The answer is _no_. AKS, I may be dimwitted as you suggest but the preceding paragraph seems obvious to me.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE:to northern guy   1/22/2004 3:08:41 AM
Well, well I said I am not going to waist time with you guys on this subject any more, since it seems you dont even fully read my posts, but you just amaze me. Sitting in front of your computer you decided that Marshal Zhokov just did not know strategy, I mean so what that he is one of the great strategs of 20th century, right. Northernguy did you EVEN listen to NEWS in any language, you probably missed the part when they said that US bought their way to Iraq, especially Baghdad. What that is not a fact either, the WHOLE WORLD WAS TALKING ABOUT IT. Also you mention about the strategies that the SOVIETS (notice I dont say Russians, because it was not only them)did not use, but they could have, and what was the daily artilery barrage that fell on Berlin? You know there is this term, called battelfield preperation, its when you work the battelfield with lots of artillery and THEN you move in (kinda like the US forces did in the first GW). Then Berlin only had ruins (actually it was so bad, that some "liberal" writers of today accuse the Soviets in brutality) , but since Germans and their generals were not MONEY LOVING pussies, they fought to the bitter end, like any normal person for his country. So with this I am going to leave this topic, since there is no getting to you. See I come to posts like this to engage my mind, think about the stuff said, from people like mikegolf, who clearly argues his point and I take something from it, but when I read your posts they are just hilerious, it is like reading a 12 year old kid's argument. Thanks for reading
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    AKS   1/22/2004 3:16:57 AM
I think you'll find that there is almost universal admiration for Marshal Zhukov as a strategist. I think you might be misreading the responses. It's a comms problem in here, not a slight on Zukhov.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE:To joe6pack   1/22/2004 3:17:51 AM
you wrpte "But any time you want to discuss facts... rather than your somewhat bias opinion - I'm open." Well let me see, I was mentioning how Brits, French, and the Sovits(now Russians) have better military schools, and I also said that it is Israel that really cares for its soldiers ( it has to, small population), and also I said that leo2 and t80/90 are better tanks for the future battelefields, and I remember mentioning how stinger is an excellent aa missile, so where was my bias again? Oh did I mention that I am neither British, Jewsish, German, Russian, nor French. And about the Normandie please read the full thread, it was a conversation that I had with mikegolf.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics