TANKS OLD VS. NEW

Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by WetBandit, Aug 3, 2017.

  1. Ironwolf

    Ironwolf Poster Extraordinaire Gold Supporter

    Age:
    63
    Posts:
    8,712
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Sorry, you are right, the Abrams' gun is based on the Rheinmetall 120. The sabot penetraters are still the same basic performance, however.
     
  2. notmyusualuserid

    notmyusualuserid Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,074
    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    Location:
    In the South
    .
     
  3. Kingpin

    Kingpin Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    2,457
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Location:
    Here
    How do you reach this conclusion? Even if the modern tank was stripped of its weapon systems, it is still superior in mobility and armor. "No match" implies it is substantially inferior to technology from 70 years ago. Absurd.

    If the implication is that modern tank crews have less training or courage than their WWII counterparts, well, that's absurd too.
     
    Jhengsman and LutherBurger like this.
  4. LutherBurger

    LutherBurger Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    4,382
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Location:
    NYC
    Welcome to the 21st century. This is how research works now. ;)
     
    william tele likes this.
  5. Jhengsman

    Jhengsman Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    629
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    When I was a ROTC cadet I spent a summer with an Oregon National Guard light anti tank force with their TOWs mounted on jeeps while waiting for excess ITVs when Bradleys where being added to the force. I came to the conclusion that they would get one missile off before the combined arms artillery and mortars blew them away. My first time out as a Platoon Leader after going to Fort Knox we would start the exercise and my miles would go off with TOW hits from the Scout Platoons ITV. Later when we tasked organized my platoon would be chopped down to the scouts if another platoon from my company wasn't loaned to the divisional cavalry squadron.
    As a Platoon Leader we had M60A1s trying to figure out a way to stay with the other battalions which had already gotten their M1s in force on force. That first generation M1 also had a 105mm rifled cannon but in exercises a hit from a tank registered as a hit from a tank and a kill. Even with their thermal sights against our retrofitted Starlight scopes we could move from prepared position to prepared position but once past the initial killing zone we were always toast.

    Even though I trained on a M60A3 at Knox were also trained on the back up systems. Which served me well seeing that I went to a A1 equipped unit. I can't count the number of times our turret lost power and we had to hand crank the turret around giving the "traverse left/right, elevate/depress ,steady, steady on" fire commands. About the only advantage the WWII era tank, which I count the A1 as the last example of was the faster range estimation and the gunners being more experienced in apply lead should all the electronics fry. And even then if the modern tank was shooting sabot the flat ballistic curve probably puts them on target since I would be hiding and not moving so that the gunner's lead calculation.

    To the main question, if you can see it you can hit it, however with WWII era ammunition you will need every advantage, firing down onto the top or up into the belly to be in the position to kill it, a modern third generation main battle tank.
     
  6. Obsessed

    Obsessed Telefied Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    23,092
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Montana
    It would be interesting to hear from the tank vets here, how much do you think tank warfare strategy has evolved since the Rommel years? Oh, and how does air recon enter into the strategy? That History channel show about Kuwait seems to imply that tanks are going in blind, which seems hard to believe.
     
  7. Chud

    Chud Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    8,413
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Location:
    New York City
    There was a good deal of battlefield confusion in the Gulf (as there is in any conflict), but armored warfare will always be an integral part of the strategic toolkit, and its strategy has advanced along with the technology that allows for engagements at greater distances, more accurate fire on the move, and more effective defensive capabilities.

    I haven't seen the History channel doc, but I can tell you from my experience as a Scout for 1st Tanks over there that we were anything but blind. We faced natural and man made obstacles that made our technology less effective at times, but except for about 90 minutes between 0530 and when the sun started burning off the fog every day (particularly during "The Battle for Breakfast"), and adjusting to the thermal sights being pretty much useless in the burning oil fields, we adapted and overcame very nicely.

    We made use of every asset at our disposal to gain insight and advantage over the enemy. Our air superiority was a massive advantage that allowed a lot of data on enemy positions to be relayed in real time through my platoon and other FACs to the larger task force during the missions we were running.
     
  8. Jhengsman

    Jhengsman Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    629
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Not much, more and longer range sniping as crews have a much higher hit probability. Faster operational cycles and more shooting on the move and 24/7 operations due to mobility and night vision advancements. Better coordination with supporting arms due to radio and computer advancements. Although Allied tank crews rarely faced heavy aerial attack after North Africa, German tank crews had to deal with an ever increasing capability of air and supporting artillery attacks until the end of the war.
     
    Obsessed likes this.
  9. LutherBurger

    LutherBurger Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    4,382
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Location:
    NYC
    Battlefield maneuver tactics ("strategy" has a different meaning in the military, and I never concerned myself with it) haven't changed much since the domestication of the horse.

    Battlefield intelligence, regardless of the source, has to be accurate and timely to be useful. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Assessments can be wrong, and things can change between planning and execution, so soldiers (and Marines, airmen, etc.) and leaders are trained to think and adapt quickly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2017
    Obsessed likes this.
  10. Guitarzan

    Guitarzan Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    6,808
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Hotlanta, GA
    Rifling does not add much benefit but does add expense and wear/maintenance issues when firing sabot rounds. That is true for man portable arms like shotguns firing sabot slugs for hunting. The electric rail guns fire a round inside a sabot like device as well.
     
  11. Jhengsman

    Jhengsman Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    629
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    They were needed to get the KE shot spinning in the day before fin stabilized sabot and HEAT rounds were fielded.
     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.