- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,837
- Points
- 113
This is the problem with people like you and the moron Xebay. You read a little, and all of a sudden you become an expert. At least you don't lie like Xebay and claim to be from an armour unit. If these tanks are so weak and vulnerable against IEDs and anti tank weapons, WHY ARE THEY STILL AROUND? AND....WHAT OTHER WEAPONS SY STEM THAT IS NOT VULNERABLE TO ALL THESE THREATS CAN REPLACE THEM? The answer is they are still around because nothing better is available. If that is the case, they cannot be said to be obsolete if they are still in need.
Every weapon system, even sophisticated ones, can be defeated. U-2 spyplanes have been shot down, stealth fighters have been shot down, Un-manned stealth UAV have been shot down, etc. But just because they can be defeated, it does not mean you have to stop using it. Everyone knows there are 2 dozens good ways to sink an aircraft carrier, but still the US have not stopped using them, and in fact are building more. Only ignorant fools say tanks are no use because of this and that.
FYI, tanks almost never operate in isolation in an urban environment. They are almost always escorted by dismounted infantry, or IFV with AI, and have sniper and UAV overwatch when they enter a town. You can have an anti tank team pop up and take a shot at a tank. But almost immediately, their position would be located. For everyone one tank killed, you can bet many more anti tank teams are eliminated by the escorting infantry or snipers. Most anti tank weapons have to be fired in the open, and not in an enclosed area, so they have to go to a rooftop or something like that. where they are spotted by snipers or UAV. This is tank infantry co-operation and practiced by the US Army in Fallujah and by the IDF in Gaza.
Sometimes tanks are disabled by IEDs but it would have to be a very large one. And usually its a mobility kill not a total kill. This means the tank can still fight. In the Gulf war, there are many reports of M1 driving over land mines, detonating them, but still keep going. Tanks are hard to kill even with modern anti tank weapons, especially those with Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) protection. As well, tanks now have active anti RPG protection like Trophy which identifies and destroys RPG warheads heading towards the tank. The history of tank warfare is one of counter moves. Eg. ATGM missiles like Sagger were countered with ERA. ERA was countered with Tandem RPG warheads. APFSDS rounds were countered with Chobham armour. Now RPG tandem warheads are countered with Trophy system.
Bottom line is every so call death knell of the tank (and this is going back to WW2), has been proven false. Only idiots will prognosticate its demise repeatedly. If you ask any infantry man whether they would like to attack a FIBUA without armour support, they will tell you to fuck off. The use of a tank saves you more casualties on the infantry side if for no other reason than every defenders will shoot at the tank.
BTW, the IDF withdraw from Gaza not because they were repelled. They were withdrawn because the worldwide public opinion was against them, and it was even against them at home. The right way to attack a small urban area like the Gaza is to just level it and you don't have to worry about anyone surviving to shoot at you. But that is politically a no no and the rules of engagement are just too tight for them. And you have CNN all over the fucking place showing pictures of dead palestinian kids and mothers, its almost fighting with kid gloves on. The Russians don't have this problem in Chechnya, and I am sure their tank losses were not that bad. Anyway, for the latest Gaza offensive conducted last year by the IDF, there is no reports of Merkava 4 being destroyed despite all the anti tank weapons you mentioned above.
Below is an excerpt from a West Point Military Academy article:
Anti-Tank Actions
A second key category of Hamas ground action consisted of attacks on Israeli armored vehicles, including tanks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and armored engineering vehicles. Hamas had specialized anti-tank units equipped with a variety of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and RPGs. ATGMs reportedly included the Malyutka, Konkurs, Fagot, and Kornet types.[52] RPGs included the RPG-7 and the modern and capable RPG-29.[53] Hamas attempted to engage IDF armor with ATGMs at long range, and with anti-tank teams in close combat.[54] Hamas also used IEDs and mines against IDF armor, and attempted to draw the IDF into prepared “ambushes” where all anti-tank means could be brought to bear.[55]
Hamas was less effective with these tactics. Not a single IDF tank was confirmed destroyed, nor were any Namer heavy APCs lost in combat. Other armored vehicles appeared more vulnerable, including the aging M113 APC, in which seven Israeli troops were killed in an RPG blast.[56] Armored corps personnel were killed and wounded by sniping and mortar fire, but by and large Hamas anti-tank weapons and tactics were not of great effect.[57] This was due to the Trophy anti-ATGM system employed on Merkava Mk 4 tanks,[58] the protection provided by Merkava tanks and Namer APCs,[59] and probably Israeli tactics that employed heavy firepower against ATGM threats.
Last edited:
