Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

[Austin]

An Israeli Shell in an Indian Tank

India is equipping its Arjun tanks with IAI’s LAHAT missile

India is equipping its Arjun tanks with the LAHAT missile produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The missile will provide the tank with the ability to hit moving targets from great distances while in motion.

IAI developed and produced the LAHAT – a laser-guided missile that can be launched from a tank's cannon, reaching its target by homing in on a laser spot. The shell-missile weighs approximately 12 kg and has a range of 8 km, including a lethal 2.5 kg warhead.

Despite the many technical difficulties the Arjun tank project experienced over the years, its serial production and is well underway.

The Indian army recently announced that it intends to order 250 more improved Arjun tanks following the conclusion of the user tests. The newer version has received dozens of improvements compared to the MK-1 variant.

Improvements include its mobility, brigade-power, and the capability to fire missiles through a gun barrel. The tank will also be equipped with advanced reactive shielding.

The Indian Army has committed to continue procuring the tanks if the improvements prove worthy during testing. Four brigades equipped with the Arjun tanks are expected to be operational by 2016.

[Singha]

I have seen T72 tanks in trucks on BLR-Tumkur route going towards Pune side. no idea where they come from and why.

[Sanku]

I have seen T72 tanks in trucks on BLR-Tumkur route going towards Pune side. no idea where they come from and why.

Shh dont talk about it too loudly, next thing you know, Shekar Gupta would have printed another coup story in the Indian express.

We dont want to spook the Govt too much already do we?

[Singha]

^

[Philip]

Shekar Gups?

Now Gen.VKS is getting flak for his telly interviews where he puts down his side of the controversy .Frankly,while he has been more "sinned against that sinning",his too frequent use of the media to me has not been in the best interests of the IA.He also lets innuendos as to who the alleged conspirators against him are ,hang in the air,when he should've been more blunt and forthright.Are these his final salvos or are we in for more tamasha ? Let's see what happens at the end of May!

[Sanku]

his too frequent use of the media to me has not been in the best interests of the IA.

Why not? So far just which exact intrest of IA has been compromised?

He also lets innuendos as to who the alleged conspirators against him are ,hang in the air,when he should've been more blunt and forthright

Which innuendos? He has been specific and clear in whatever he has said. He did say that there are some questions he cant answer now, and there is more that he would be able to share later.

But which innuendo specifically?

Sorry Philip, but you are unnecessarily beating up on the Gen. Not a good idea IMVHO.

[arijitkm]

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/05/a ... wards.html


.

..........Last week, the army chief declared in a television interview that he knew the WZT-3 ARV contract was a scam and BEML should be investigated in detail. He called the Tatra deal “a wake-up call for us to start examining other areas where things could have gone wrong”.

But in February, BEML was nominated, without bidding, for the lucrative order for additional WZT-3 ARVs. Disregarded entirely was the fact that in three previous contracts for a total of 352 WZT-3 ARVs (44 in 1999; 80 in 2002; and 228 in 2005), BEML had disregarded the contractual stipulation to indigenise the ARV. Instead, the Indian defence public sector undertaking (DPSU) imported fully built ARVs from a Polish company, Bumar, fitted cosmetic Indian components and supplied these to the army.
The WZT-3 ARVs are essentially T-72 tanks kitted for repair and recovery, rather than for fighting. Instead of a gun and turret, the T-72 is fitted with a heavy-duty crane, winch and repair equipment. This allows the ARV to travel cross-country with tank columns, repairing tanks that break down.
The purchase of these essential vehicles has been fraught with controversy. In 2003, Brigadier Inder Mohan Singh was a Deputy Director General in the Master General of Ordnance (MGO) Branch, which handles the procurement of “in-service equipment,” as the WZT-3 was since 1999. He has told Business Standard the tendering process was manipulated to ensure BEML emerged the lone bidder. The tender was sent out to only two PSUs, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) and BEML; only BEML bid. When Larsen & Toubro threw its hat in the ring, the defence ministry’s acquisitions chief ruled it out as an “unsolicited bid”. That left BEML, the single vendor, at liberty to dictate terms.

Top L&T officials verify this happened, though the company has declined to comment officially, since it had not been invited to bid.

Brig I M Singh says Ukraine then wrote in, offering their T-72 based ARV for trials. This was an attractive offer, since Ukraine was willing to use the T-72 chassis and running gear that India was already building near Chennai, while importing only the recovery gear. This, saysby Singh, would have made their ARV 30-40 per cent cheaper than the WZT-3. He put up an official proposal that the Ukrainian ARV be invited for trials, since this was a Rs 1,000-crore contract that should not go to a single bidder.
...................

Meanwhile, another Chetan Seth company, Optic Electronics, was providing an illustration of how “indigenisation” worked in the WZT-3.

According to a senior Chetan Seth employee, Optic Electronics functioned from an SEZ in Noida, importing surplus parts from East Europe depots, touching these up, and then re-exporting them at a 500 per cent profit.

“Optic Electronics would import the day sights for each WZT-3 ARV for $5,500. These stained, often rusty, parts would be cleaned up and re-exported to Bumar Poland for around $25,000. These would then be fitted onto the WZT-3,” says the Seth employee on condition of anonymity.

[Sanku]

^^ The information for this report comes in from the hard work done by Indian Army under Gen VK Singh as he set about shaking things up to get at the root of matters.

Unfortunately Shukla will claim all the credit for getting the reports from his "Army sources" but will also bad mouth Gen VK Singh at the same time.

How nice.

[nachiket]

Now Gen.VKS is getting flak for his telly interviews where he puts down his side of the controversy .Frankly,while he has been more "sinned against that sinning",his too frequent use of the media to me has not been in the best interests of the IA.He also lets innuendos as to who the alleged conspirators against him are ,hang in the air,when he should've been more blunt and forthright.Are these his final salvos or are we in for more tamasha ? Let's see what happens at the end of May!

And this is related to "Armoured Vehicles" how? The chief's getting mud slung at him from all quarters for doing what's right. Don't start it here.

[abhishekgoel]

Just wondering Are the tanks really necessary? What exactly there role in battlefield now? When invented they were used as cavalry to break infantry formation, with time newer, cheaper and more effective weapons have been invented?

Should n't IA purchase more combat Helicopters instead?

[d_berwal]

Just wondering Are the tanks really necessary? What exactly there role in battlefield now? When invented they were used as cavalry to break infantry formation, with time newer, cheaper and more effective weapons have been invented?

Should n't IA purchase more combat Helicopters instead?

ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

why do you think tanks are not necessary?
What do u think, is a role of tank that can be taken over by any other weapon system?
what can be an alternative for an MBT?
Are we not purchasing more attack choppers ?

[Kersi D]

An Israeli Shell in an Indian Tank

India is equipping its Arjun tanks with IAI’s LAHAT missile

India is equipping its Arjun tanks with the LAHAT missile produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The missile will provide the tank with the ability to hit moving targets from great distances while in motion.

IAI developed and produced the LAHAT – a laser-guided missile that can be launched from a tank's cannon, reaching its target by homing in on a laser spot. The shell-missile weighs approximately 12 kg and has a range of 8 km, including a lethal 2.5 kg warhead.

Despite the many technical difficulties the Arjun tank project experienced over the years, its serial production and is well underway.

The Indian army recently announced that it intends to order 250 more improved Arjun tanks following the conclusion of the user tests. The newer version has received dozens of improvements compared to the MK-1 variant.

Improvements include its mobility, brigade-power, and the capability to fire missiles through a gun barrel. The tank will also be equipped with advanced reactive shielding.

The Indian Army has committed to continue procuring the tanks if the improvements prove worthy during testing. Four brigades equipped with the Arjun tanks are expected to be operational by 2016.

[Asit P]

Finally some good news on the Arjun front.

[ArmenT]

Just wondering Are the tanks really necessary? What exactly there role in battlefield now? When invented they were used as cavalry to break infantry formation, with time newer, cheaper and more effective weapons have been invented?

Should n't IA purchase more combat Helicopters instead?

I should really post this in the FAQ thread, as this question keeps getting asked time and time again. Please read this post I made a while ago:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p849155

[nelson]

I have seen T72 tanks in trucks on BLR-Tumkur route going towards Pune side. no idea where they come from and why.

Does Bangalore to Tumkur stretch fall on the route from Avadi to Kirkee? If yes, then you know why!

Avadi

Kirkee

[abhishekgoel]

Just wondering Are the tanks really necessary? What exactly there role in battlefield now? When invented they were used as cavalry to break infantry formation, with time newer, cheaper and more effective weapons have been invented?

Should n't IA purchase more combat Helicopters instead?

I should really post this in the FAQ thread, as this question keeps getting asked time and time again. Please read this post I made a while ago:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p849155

1)The era considered in your post is quite old. The weapons argued to be replace tanks are defensive weapons most of them are immobile e.g. IEDs or anti tank guns. I am now pointing out to better anti tank measures like javelin or Nag missile on a armored vehicle or helina missile on combat helicopter.

In world war II the Germans were able to defeat France due to their well co-ordinated attacks. French & English tanks were taken out by Luftwaffe. German radio's also helped in maintaining the proper formation and cordination.

The Senai attack was tank vs tank attack. Israel has better experience and tanks. Your argument of offense does not holds for the Syrian and Egypt forces have a larger number of tanks and were the attacking forces. Israel crossed Suez later and Egyptians were not able to contain them as they have moved there army forward to support Syria.

ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

why do you think tanks are not necessary?
What do u think, is a role of tank that can be taken over by any other weapon system?
what can be an alternative for an MBT?
Are we not purchasing more attack choppers ?

not necessary? I feel that they can be destroyed by cheaper means especially in defense. e.g. Bazooka, javelin, battle of khemkaran PVC Abdul Hamid with a Jeep and recoil-less gun destroyed six Patton tanks. In attack they are dependent on terrain only can only used in open lands. Try posting them in Kargil and Siachen for attack.

Role? I don't know whats there role is now apart from power projection. When conceived there role was to overcome trench warfare? Battle fields are now supposed to be more mobile and stealthy. China when attacked us didn't took the established routes. Large trench position like world war I are susceptible to low intensity high precision missiles, or heavy localized bombings.

Alternative? Give me scenarios and I will suggest the suitable alternative.

chopper purchase? We are not reducing/phasing out tanks? Are we.

I am not against armory. As I also feel light Infantry carrying vehicle to be able to transfer a dozen infantry man with weapons fast should be emphasized.

[kit]

Well there are countries, first rate industrial powers without a single tank.But i think given the size of the potential theater of war and as well as a means to enforce protection in an occupied area, tanks do have a role. Again a marriage between increasingly sophisticated ICVs and tanks would be possible in the decade.Just like manned aircraft , tanks still matter for some time more.

[Philip]

Look,the good general is his worst enemy.He may be credited for exposing specific cases of corruption,etc.,but his style while still chief has been in poor taste. His last day missive castigating another officer ,whatever the merits of the case has given the impression of him mounting a personal crusade against his perceived enemies right upto the last minute.I frankly found his frequent interviews more slanted about his personal issues than the state of health of the IA and its needs.Read Lt.Gen. Sinha's take on the issue in an above post.

Back to AVs.The news item about Merkavas being considered by Colombia,is interesting.The Merkavas,unsupported by ground forces in the last Lebanese spat were picked off in style by the Hiz.The addition of slat armour to earlier tanks has been a cheapo solution to a cheapo warhead,but effective.Also equipped with a German engine,I doubt very much if the Merkava is coming cheap.Jan reorts indicated that some of its reserves (MK-4) were affected by engine failure.

[vasu raya]

we look at Fedex or a UPS and talk about the significant reserve they provide to strategic airlift capability, so why not view railways in a similar manner to Armoured regiments, they share a significant commonality in hardware, fuel management, capacity management, surge operations, emergency operations, workshops. Here are a few concrete examples,

Bharat power pack can be used on diesel locos

Kaveri on a tank even as a tech demo can find its way into a jet engine powered loco

Railways needs power for its electrified sections, DRDO can provide the wind turbine blades made of composites enabling creation of wind energy parks, if based offshore/coastal waters thats even better

Suspension from Arjun tank can be used in rail wagons especially those used to carry strategic missiles enhancing their life

Railways should focus on operations, just like army does, and they don't need to alone manufacture locomotives but buy them from other public or private sources
------------------

Army convoys can save fuel by hooking up end to end with couplers like wagons and be pulled by one "engine", convoy length is proportional to the motive engine's power etc

Heavy vehicle factories for tanks can be converted to loco factories, in the process Army can get more number of tanks in a shorter timeframe without CVRDE worrying about creating extra capacity and later being under utilized

In acheiving this synergy and hence cost effectiveness, Army would have to eventually get rid of the T-series bhoot and rely on indigenous technologies. The logistics issue that they keep propping up in justifying these purchases will be resolved as well.

------------------

The technology roadmap of each organization, can be shared in a synergistic manner

Capacity Creation

Logistics/Operations

Common repair workshops & instrumentation

Onboarding of skilled technical personnel

Relief operations in conjunction

Pursuing green technologies

[vina]

Bharat power pack can be used on diesel locos

Fine , if you want the loco just to Bangalore and Back for just 10 times , and then be junked. Or better still, if you want to lease such a loco to Pakistan

Kaveri on a tank even as a tech demo can find its way into a jet engine powered loco

The fuel bill will see your fare go to near Shatabdi levels for an ordinary 2nd class fare.

[SaiK]

Finally some good news on the Arjun front.

Let me pose this question, had that articled written without mentioning Israeli systems fror Arjun, do you think a desi homegrown one would have interested you to post a good news liner.. in the sense, with the qualifier "finally"?

[Singha]

jet engine in locos has been tried and discarded long ago. diesel-electric and all-electric seems to most cost effective options.

[d_berwal]

not necessary? I feel that they can be destroyed by cheaper means especially in defense. e.g. Bazooka, javelin, battle of khemkaran PVC Abdul Hamid with a Jeep and recoil-less gun destroyed six Patton tanks.

recoil-less guns and bazooka cannot destroy the present generation MBT's
ATGM can be taken care by Active protection systems.

In attack they are dependent on terrain only can only used in open lands.

that is your perception, they can be used where ever maneuvers are possible let the maneuvers be limited.

Try posting them in Kargil and Siachen for attack.

are you serious !!! Siachen and kargil are exception's. There are enough examples of IA using MBT in difficult mountain terrain.

Role? I don't know whats there role is now apart from power projection. When conceived there role was to overcome trench warfare? Battle fields are now supposed to be more mobile and stealthy. China when attacked us didn't took the established routes. Large trench position like world war I are susceptible to low intensity high precision missiles, or heavy localized bombings.

Alternative? Give me scenarios and I will suggest the suitable alternative.

chopper purchase? We are not reducing/phasing out tanks? Are we.

I am not against armory. As I also feel light Infantry carrying vehicle to be able to transfer a dozen infantry man with weapons fast should be emphasized.

where was the question of phasing out MBT to buy choppers?
If i give you 4 Light Infantry carrying vehicle carrying 12 men in each vehicle and give your opponent 1 Heavy/Medium MBT with APS and ERA who has the edge?

[koti]

Added @abhishekgoel saab,

Tanks are the best way to breach enemy lines. Imagine doing this by using plane infantry and you will know the reasons Tanks will be necessary.

Eventhough a Tank may be defeated by ATGM or Light guns, a Tank column can not. And when a tank regiment is charging towards you, the only way to stop it effectively will be by using your own Tanks. And do remember that Tank formations have their own AA and LR-ATGM components.

[abhishekgoel]

not necessary? I feel that they can be destroyed by cheaper means especially in defense. e.g. Bazooka, javelin, battle of khemkaran PVC Abdul Hamid with a Jeep and recoil-less gun destroyed six Patton tanks.

recoil-less guns and bazooka cannot destroy the present generation MBT's
ATGM can be taken care by Active protection systems.

In attack they are dependent on terrain only can only used in open lands.

that is your perception, they can be used where ever maneuvers are possible let the maneuvers be limited.

Try posting them in Kargil and Siachen for attack.

are you serious !!! Siachen and kargil are exception's. There are enough examples of IA using MBT in difficult mountain terrain.

Role? I don't know whats there role is now apart from power projection. When conceived there role was to overcome trench warfare? Battle fields are now supposed to be more mobile and stealthy. China when attacked us didn't took the established routes. Large trench position like world war I are susceptible to low intensity high precision missiles, or heavy localized bombings.

Alternative? Give me scenarios and I will suggest the suitable alternative.

chopper purchase? We are not reducing/phasing out tanks? Are we.

I am not against armory. As I also feel light Infantry carrying vehicle to be able to transfer a dozen infantry man with weapons fast should be emphasized.

where was the question of phasing out MBT to buy choppers?
If i give you 4 Light Infantry carrying vehicle carrying 12 men in each vehicle and give your opponent 1 Heavy/Medium MBT with APS and ERA who has the edge?

[abhishekgoel]

1) recoil-less guns and bazooka cannot destroy the present generation MBT's
ATGM can be taken care by Active protection systems.

2) they can be used where ever maneuvers are possible let the maneuvers be limited. are you serious !!! Siachen and kargil are exception's. There are enough examples of IA using MBT in difficult mountain terrain.

3)where was the question of phasing out MBT to buy choppers?
If i give you 4 Light Infantry carrying vehicle carrying 12 men in each vehicle and give your opponent 1 Heavy/Medium MBT with APS and ERA who has the edge?

1) I agree recoil-less guns and bazooka cannot destroy the present generation MBT's and probabiity of hit can be reduced by counter measure? counter question Question.=>Does this imply tank are invisible and indestructible if is it so I would change my argument and would vouch for increase in their number on the cost of other arms.
As per my knowledge it is significantly cheaper to destroy them if the army is well equipped. (Keep top five to ten armies in mind)

2) These two battle field may be exception but what about most of Indian border with china and Pakistan. It is mountainous with a very difficult terrain; significant part of border with Pakistan is marshy. kindly back your statement with proper examples/data regarding tank battles.

3) Armies always have a budget. That has a limit, When I started the argument I had in in mind how can an armies effectiveness/defenses can be improved without increasing cost. i.e. optimization (please keep emotions afar) resources are always limited.

Finally, Kindly don't create ridiculous scenarios. (1 lion vs 30 cattle; off course cattle will run away. If replace 10 of those cattle by two horsemen with guns the scenario will be different ). Even in this scenario the 48 soldiers can defeat this lone tank if they properly equipped and trained for taking out a tank just they need to reach close to this tank. Yes, attempt to go close to tank in broad daylight in the ICV is suicide.

Crux of modern warfare between two well equipped sides is stealth (which is missing in tank) and speed. Tanks can be easily spotted by radars and there speed is limited (comparing to crafts and missile). They also need infantry support (slowing them further) and not very capable on their own.

[abhishekgoel]

Added @abhishekgoel saab,

Tanks are the best way to breach enemy lines. Imagine doing this by using plane infantry and you will know the reasons Tanks will be necessary.

Eventhough a Tank may be defeated by ATGM or Light guns, a Tank column can not. And when a tank regiment is charging towards you, the only way to stop it effectively will be by using your own Tanks. And do remember that Tank formations have their own AA and LR-ATGM components.

Kotiji I contest both of your statements. I go by data.
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. 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.

Regarding tank charge. Israel Markava tanks were destroyed by poorly armed militia in urban conflict (Tanks are ill suited for urban conflict). 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.

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. It they had x number of n generation tank we should have 2x number of n +1 generation tanks. If they had n soldiers we should have 2n soldiers, if they have n Jeeps we should have 2n Jeeps and so on.

Modern tanks are more vulnerable as the modern ammunition is much more sophisticated. 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.

Remember in a race of survival counter measure for defense usually cost more than increasing the intensity and effectiveness of offense.

[ramana]

Rohitvats, Where does one start to critique the above post!

[VikramS]

@abhishekgoel:

There is a countermeasure for every weapon and platform. We have ABM for BMs, SAM-AAM for planes, HARPS for radar etc. Going by your logic every platform is now obsolete.

Losses and casualties are a part of battle. You develop counter measures to reduce them but you can never eliminate them.

What you have to look at is the ROLE played by a tank group, which is primarily to "break enemy lines". And this is carried in coordination with the rest of the force including artillery, choppers, air-attack, missiles etc. It is the close in attack role against built in defenses, where you are taking heavy small/medium arms fire where the tank proves its worth. A tank can destroy fortifications, respond to small arm fire, while protecting its crew from most of local-theater weapons it will see. It requires dedicated weapon systems used appropriately to be stopped. Think about it, what chance a soft skin vehicle or the unprotected infantry will have an in an environment where even a tank is at risk?

The examples you gave of success or the failure of tanks during historical battles prove that no single weapon system wins a battle; it is a combination of a variety of events including the availability of air-cover. However your examples also establish that given the right environment, tank groups can run havoc. Consider the TSPA@longowala, they did their job i.e. to provide the ability to thrust deep and quickly. In Longowala, the TSPAF was nowhere to be seen. They had no AA support and were in fact using their tank's main guns as anti-AA guns! What if they had better protection against air-attacks? Could Chandipur's men been able to stop them if the TSPA had better information or smarter officers and their tanks had mounted a full assault on his post?

What you have to think about is not what can stop a tank, but what can replace a tank when it comes to attacking lines defended by multiple fortifications.

Remember the Bismark was sunk because a torpedo hit jammed her rudders. Nothing is invincible.

[Rahul M]

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

Code: Select all

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.

[Mihir]

Abhishek, you are confusing several different issues in your post, and applying the limited lessons of one-off, unique, conflicts, to the case of a large-scale general war. There are several reasons that MBTs are irreplaceable assets on the modern battlefield. Allow me to counter some of your points here.

1. Anti-tank weapons are lethal, deadly, and cheap enough to make short work of an armoured assault.

Even if this were true (and it is not, at least not to the point where you can generalise about these things), anti-tank weapons still cannot replace the tank. For a successful assault in the plains, you need mass, you need shock, and you need speed. Can infantry armed with anti-tank weapons deliver such assaults against withering enemy fire? No. These are fundamentally defensive weapons. Used skillfully, they can beat back an armoured assault, but they are not replacements for armour in any way. Can you imagine columns of anti-tank infantry covering a couple of hundred kilometers of rough ground in a matter of hours to catch an enemy by complete surprise? I sure cannot!

This is not to say that tanks are the be-all and end-all of land warfare. They work best when employed as a part of combined-arms formations with significant mechanised infantry, artillery, and air defence support. But note that quite often, these other arms act in support of armour.

2. Tanks are next to useless in the mountains.

This is a red herring at best and simply incorrect at worst. It is no one's case that mass assaults by tanks are par for the course in the mountains. But their inability to deploy in mountainous terrain has little effect on their importance to warfare in the plains. And tanks have been used successfully in the mountains as well. They proved decisive in the battle for Zoji La; their mere appearance on the battlefield caused the Pakistani troops defending the pass to flee.

3. Tanks have been isolated and destroyed in urban conflict by guerrilla fighters

Partisans and guerillas work very well when employed against occupying forces on their home turf - they have the support of the local population, blend in with it, and take full advantage of built-up areas, while tanks and armoured vehicles falter. At the same time, they lack the discipline, training, and co-ordination to take on combined-arms formations in open battle. The lesson is not that one is inherently superior to another, but that the right tool has to be used for the job at hand. Adopting a one-size-fits-all approach is a sure way to end up in disaster.

4. "Crux of modern warfare between two well equipped sides is stealth and speed"

Sorry, no. Stealth and speed mean little without the mass and firepower to back them up. Some sections of the popular media, through the skewed coverage of the US victory in Operation Desert Storm, have created the perception amongst us amateurs that it was stealth that won the war. But a more thorough reading shows that the victory still turned on the same principles by which the armies in WW-II fought: information superiority, logistical superiority and flexibility, excellent leadership, superlative staff-work and planning, mass, firepower, and shock. Do look up the orbat of the coalition forces during that war, and see what kind of armoured assets they brought to the battlefield. VII Corps, the primary striking force, included three armoured divisions, one cavalry division, and one mechanised infantry division. All this to fight an army that was already reeling from the massive air campaign that had been unleashed against it.

5. Tanks were introduced to solve the "problem of trench warfare", and that era is long gone.

By the same standard, aircraft were introduced to solve the problem of reconnaisance. Does this mean that the era of military aircraft is also gone? I would think not. Indeed, infantry assaults impaling themselves on enemy barbed wire and machine guns necessitated the use of tanks in WW-I, but they became far more versatile weapons later on, and remain so to this day.

6. We should purchase combat helicopters instead.

Combat helicopters are a support weapon, and cannot face a moderately well-prepared enemy independently. Moreover, they lack the armour and staying power to replace tanks and hold ground for long periods of time. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US Army used Apache units in the independent manoeuvre role, usually for interdiction operations. That these operations were largely unsuccessful, and came at a great cost in terms of losses incurred, shows how ineffective attack helicopters are when used independently. Their proper role, to this day, remains CAS and direct support of ground forces.

[Mihir]

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

They very much did! Rommel set up some very effective tank traps in north Africa using 88mm flak guns that tore apart British assaults. In the wide open spaces of Russia, armour was often lured into kill-zones where it was finished off by artillery and anti-tank guns.

People like Leslie McNair were calling for the wholesale replacement of tanks by AT guns even then. And yet, the US Army's tank destroyer battalions failed miserably when they were used in place of tanks without accounting for their deficiencies.

[abhishekgoel]

actually it's the other way around, the aerial campaign was used to soften the iraqis so as to reduce casualties.------- goals and no one does that better than strikers.

It has taken the trajectory of argument than a discussion, with an ironic small print considering the language of post above.

Coming back to the discussion....
What I make from the arguments (removing all gibberish) are...
1) Tanks an essential part of attack especially strategic thrust.
2) Their vulnerability is the same compared to time of world war II.
3) It is best used if this tool can be used with other tools of war e.g. infantry, attack helo, etc


Counters: (Inspite of your help I am still struggling to understand the role)
1) Why do you think that tanks are the only tools be needed for stratgic thrust? They have armour to protect 3 or four with considerable amount of limited range fire power. My question is why can't separate the two: the fire power and the protection of infantry thrusting inside.
The normal tank shell is not designed to target infantry and it is insufficient for well armoured tanks from a large domain of angle. So it resort to a role of light artillery (I can be wrong here feel free).

2) In previous post I wrote "In Second world war infantry had no means to credible means to destroy a tank from a distance". Here "from distance" has to be kept in mind. All the counters in subsequent post were either passive or attacks on tanks from close range.

Now with ATGMs I believe the tank could be taken down from much larger distance. Though I concede that it may be possible that its vulnerabily at close range may have decreased if so kindly confirm with facts and figure.

3) I accept that it is a tool but it seems more like a kichdi (not a striker of football but an injured allrounder of indian cricket team with no specialty but bit of two qualities needing a runner to bat).

I m raising the question
a) Does it provide adequate speed to the attack or defence comparing it with other options like suitable air power
b) Does this platform has very high degree of fire power and mobility or is it lagging behind some contemporary developments
c) Does it provide adequate protection to infantory?
d) Are they infallabile as they made out to be?

It is a large beast but I am questioning its effectiveness give the modern battlefield. The more I think about it more it seems to me like cavalry of bygone era. (Poles used them in second world war against Germans and many armies still maintain horses)

________________________________________________
My knowledge is bookish so general excuses apply

[abhishekgoel]

Abhishek, you are confusing several different issues in your post, and applying the limited lessons of one-off, unique, conflicts, to the case of a large-scale general war.

1. Anti-tank weapons are lethal, deadly, and cheap enough to make short work of an armoured assault.

2. Tanks are next to useless in the mountains.

3. Tanks have been isolated and destroyed in urban conflict by guerrilla fighters

4. "Crux of modern warfare between two well equipped sides is stealth and speed"

5. Tanks were introduced to solve the "problem of trench warfare", and that era is long gone.

6. We should purchase combat helicopters instead.

Combat helicopters are a support weapon, and cannot face a moderately well-prepared enemy independently. Moreover, they lack the armour and staying power to replace tanks and hold ground for long periods of time. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US Army used Apache units in the independent manoeuvre role, usually for interdiction operations. That these operations were largely unsuccessful, and came at a great cost in terms of losses incurred, shows how ineffective attack helicopters are when used independently. Their proper role, to this day, remains CAS and direct support of ground forces.

1) Nowhere I imply to use Anti tank weapon for attack. I still question the speed as I believe fast ICVs and attack Helios with missile and air support can enhance the effectiveness and speed of attack.
2) Zozi la: if I believe my uncle (posted there) those tanks were not recovered as bringing them down on those slopes was impossible.
If Pakistanis were afraid by mere sight of them and run away then that's a surprise information to me. So I stand on the
3) Since this is not the main point lets not discuss it in urban settings.
4) I said 'crux' planning execution co-ordination were all given. Lets bury this point here to concentrate on better ones
5) they have role enhancement from reconnaissance they are the major firepower so a new role. Here I am brainstorming on the role of tank. They seem lost to me.
6) Tanks did n't face the enemy independently either Helios have better chance at hit and run(no data only intuition). why do you want the same entity to stand the ground and to attack, when these are two different roles. For occupation infantry is required and I m all for faster infantry carrying vehicles in occupation.

[Kakkaji]

Shouldn't abhishek goel be directed to the newbie thread?

[nachiket]

Shouldn't abhishek goel be directed to the newbie thread?

+1. We have had several other posters in the past arguing that the tank was dead. This is getting repetitive and boring.

[abhishekgoel]

Shouldn't abhishek goel be directed to the newbie thread?

+1. We have had several other posters in the past arguing that the tank was dead. This is getting repetitive and boring.

I know tank is not dead as long as there are buyers & sellers. Just need to know if it is more than a poetic love affair.

Kindly give me some good credible links; I would appreciate if anybody can satisfy my doubts. I can also understand if somebody try to cut corner rather than answering, it has happened a lot of time in my student life and in my career.

[Mihir]

My question is why can't separate the two: the fire power and the protection of infantry thrusting inside?

Fair question, I s'pose. Let us think this through then. Imagine you do separate the firepower from infantry protection. What you will end up with is a mass of unprotected guns and missiles leading the main assault, closely supported and followed by mechanised infantry. Ideally, you would want the firepower component to be operated by live human beings (it being good for morale and all), which means that they will need some sort of protection. As the tip of the spear, they will face the brunt of enemy fire, and unless well protected, would be vulnerable to a range of weaponry including assault rifles and machine guns. So you give them enough armour protection to withstand enemy fire, and then a little mobility too (you know, since they may have to manoeuvre over bad terrain to get into an advantageous position to mount their assault). Before you know it, you have built yourself an MBT.

The normal tank shell is not designed to target infantry and it is insufficient for well armoured tanks from a large domain of angle.

First of all, what is a "normal" tank shell? HEAT? AP shot? A bullet being fired out of the co-axial machine gun? Secondly, what does "target infantry" mean? Because infantry can be exposed, simply dug in, or hide behind heavy fortifications. The problem of neutralising each type requires its own unique solution, and you can’t group all infantry under one definition. And finally, when you say stuff like "a normal tank shell... is insufficient for well armoured tanks from a large domain of angle", you appear to be oversimplifying things by considering each little element of a tank in isolation. Tank armour is strongest at the front and weaker at the sides and the back. The aim of any armoured commander is to get a flank or rear shot while presenting his own front to the enemy. These are basic tactics. Tank battles, therefore, are highly fluid, involving constant firing and manoeuvring for an advantageous position. It is not as if two tanks present themselves face-to-face and fire at each other until one bursts into flames.

Tl;dr: A tank is a complex combination of firepower, armour, and mobility. An armoured unit is an even more complex combination of tanks, infantry, artillery, and engineer support. These elements do not fight in isolation, and making such an assumption will not help you understand how they function on the battlefield.

In Second world war infantry had no means to credible means to destroy a tank from a distance". Here "from distance" has to be kept in mind.

No. Long-range anti-tank guns were deadly when used properly. The German 88 mm flak gun, 75 mm Pak 40, and even self-propelled systems like the Stug III and Jagdpanther IV were highly effective against Allied tanks at extreme ranges.

[Mihir]

1) Nowhere I imply to use Anti tank weapon for attack. I still question the speed as I believe fast ICVs and attack Helios with missile and air support can enhance the effectiveness and speed of attack.

Then what else do you use for attack? Fast ICVs lack the firepower to take on enemy tanks and dug-in troops, and they aren't any faster than tanks. Helos lack the staying power to maintain a sustained presence on the battlefield, and are very vulnerable to enemy fire.

2) Zozi la: if I believe my uncle (posted there) those tanks were not recovered as bringing them down on those slopes was impossible.

The point being…?

3) Since this is not the main point lets not discuss it in urban settings.

Okay. Do tell us what the main point is.

4) I said 'crux' planning execution co-ordination were all given. Lets bury this point here to concentrate on better ones

"Crux" means something vital, fundamental, decisive. Apart from "planning, execution, co-ordination", there are other things that are far more crucial than stealth or speed. In the overall scheme of things, stealth is an afterthought.

5) they have role enhancement from reconnaissance they are the major firepower so a new role. Here I am brainstorming on the role of tank. They seem lost to me.

Am I the only one here who can’t make head or tail of the first sentence?

6) Tanks did n't face the enemy independently either Helios have better chance at hit and run(no data only intuition). why do you want the same entity to stand the ground and to attack, when these are two different roles. For occupation infantry is required and I m all for faster infantry carrying vehicles in occupation.

You aren't serious, are you? If a helicopter lacks staying power, what good is it when the enemy counterattacks? What is the point if it can’t consolidate the gains on the battlefield? Are you seriously suggesting that an army use helicopters to attack the enemy, have them return to base, and then scramble infantry to the front to hold captured territory? And the enemy will permit you the time for all this… why?

[Boreas]

@abhishekgoel

I think sufficient amount of info has already been supplied to the queries you raised. Leaving specifics I'll just try to generalize things for you.

Stratergy and Planning are supreme in any millitary conflict. Equipment and resources can perform overwhemingly well or depressingly low based on the quality of plan. In Trojan war for ten years what the best of greek arms failed to achieve.. a wooden horse did.

Unlike US Army most of the armies in the world don't have the luxury to get what ever they want out of their wishlist. So, generals tend to make stratergy based on what is available to them, and what they are expecting their enemies to field in war.

Every equipment has its weakness. Relying solely on a specific line of equipment will give your enemy oppurtunity to master stratergies to counter them and give you a hard time in war. Thats why armies prefer to construct an offense made up of several interlinked forces. Which makes overall situation complex for the enemy to respond.

Based on the enemies defenses and terrain a general will choose the appropriate set of equipments. Something worked in kargil, something else worked in longewala...and so on.