Kotiji I contest both of your statements. I go by data.
admirable claim. but a little hard to justify on given evidence.
Regarding tank being best way to breach enemy line consider Gulf war (1992) Allies used air forces to destroy strategic assent then army moved in to reduce causalities.
actually it's the other way around, the aerial campaign was used to soften the iraqis so as to reduce casualties.
the army moving in is NOT an optional move, it is THE objective of the war. that is the only
way to control an area.
In 1965 Sialkot sector India used its foremost tank division Pune horse and got defeated. Does n't seem to me the best way for strategic thrust.
excellent. please do let us know your choices for delivering a 'strategic thrust'.
rifle armed infantry ? motorcycle gangs ? camel cavalry perhaps ?
Regarding tank charge. Israel Markava tanks were destroyed by poorly armed militia in urban conflict
again a little problem with the accuracy of the data. the worst hit were the older 80's merkava versions with low protection levels.
the modern ones coped quite well. and guerilla forces armed with modern russian ATGM is hardly 'poorly armed militia'.
(Tanks are ill suited for urban conflict).
yes. but not as much as you think (going by your comment about the merkava).
much MORE importantly, most armies around the world DO NOT intend to deploy tanks in urban conflict and have no reason to.
In battle of Longewala (1971) the Pakistani tank column was defeated by IA without single causality (2 infantryman died in artillery barrage). The battle of Asal uttar (1965) superior tank forces of Pakistan got defeated by innovative solutions and tactical maneuvers. (1940) battle of France Luftwaffe destroyed English and French tank columns and then Panzers had a free run.
all that proves is
good tactics + combined arms >> bad tactics
nothing more, nothing less.
It seems you have a very conventional thinking rather than capability to over power the enemy most effectively you are concentrating on outnumbering or outmatching them by the same capability.
my god ! I am dying to know which enemy you have effectively overpowered just by your unconventional thinking ! do tell !
p.s. in case you didn't get it, if there's a lack of thinking, it's certainly not on koti's part. a little less arrogance would be welcome as well.
Modern tanks are more vulnerable as the modern ammunition is much more sophisticated.
again, not quite. just as AT weapons are more sophisticated so are the tank's defensive counter measures.
in this arms race one side moves ahead only to see the other side reduce the margin. net-net the vulnerability is about same as in WW2.
In second world war infantry had no means to credible means to destroy a tank from a distance, now they have better options as well as knowledge. To make the tank immobile by targeting the tracks or hitting the tanks from close range by hidden group of soldiers is a well known strategy now.
actually this is utterly incorrect. all those tactics were invented during those times (after all that war witnessed the largest tank battles in history, till date) and were applied en masse.
anti tank guns (including large caliber ack-acks modified for AT use) and bazookas claimed a large number of tanks. not to mention things like mines and anti-tanks dogs.
the point you are missing is that it's not tanks OR infantry OR attack helo
it is tanks + infantry + attack helo
all 3 together provide an overlapping bubble of protection for all 3 components. each force has its specific role to play that can't be done by the other two.
tanks and ICVs are absolutely essential to break through defensive lines and then dominate a geographical area. *nothing* does that as good as a tank. the job of infantry and choppers would be to protect the tank while it goes about its job.
to give a football example, you don't drop the strikers just because you have very good defenders. because, at the end of the day to win the match you got to score goals and no one does that better than strikers.