Battle tanks (how useful ?)

[henry d]

2 hours ago, steve1066 said:

Thanks Henry d

No problem 

36 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

Incredible pictures @henry d

Not mine unfortunately as one set that I sent for developing disappeared, so I have had to rely on my oppos from that time. 

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Russia will be very worried about challenger and abrams, they saw in the first gulf war how russian armour was decimated by them, and now there is leopard as well, russia has nothing close, expect lots of shouting from putin and his cronies and threats of nuclear war if the west continues to supply ukraine, this will have them very worried.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Iraqi tanks were Soviet age, crewed by conscripts most of whom had no significant training on the tanks, never operated as units and had never fired the main guns in anger and couldn't hit anything when they did due to lack of practice. As well as having air superiority (Inc Apache helicopters), USA\UK tanks had intensively trained for over 6 months before deploying and at that time had full intel on Iraqi positions, and in a tank battle, first round on target wins.

In Ukraine, it's the reverse, Russian tankers have had almost 12 months of combat with modern Russian tanks with FLIR and armour that are not dissimilar to Western tanks and air support.

The biggest issue though is logistics, modern Western tanks just like their howitzers (which keep breaking and being sent back to Poland for repairs) are high maintenance and most will end up as static pill boxes and only be used defensively whilst tanks are meant to be used offensively.

Whilst the tank crews might be relatively safe due to the Chobham armour, the tracks, optics, etc are all going to get shot to sh#t, rendering the tanks useless until repaired and there is no AA or RAC for tanks to drag them back to Poland for repair.

 

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Iraqi tanks were Soviet age, crewed by conscripts most of whom had no significant training on the tanks, never operated as units and had never fired the main guns in anger and couldn't hit anything when they did due to lack of practice. As well as having air superiority (Inc Apache helicopters), USA\UK tanks had intensively trained for over 6 months before deploying and at that time had full intel on Iraqi positions, and in a tank battle, first round on target wins.

In Ukraine, it's the reverse, Russian tankers have had almost 12 months of combat with modern Russian tanks with FLIR and armour that are not dissimilar to Western tanks and air support.

The biggest issue though is logistics, modern Western tanks just like their howitzers (which keep breaking and being sent back to Poland for repairs) are high maintenance and most will end up as static pill boxes and only be used defensively whilst tanks are meant to be used offensively.

Whilst the tank crews might be relatively safe due to the Chobham armour, the tracks, optics, etc are all going to get shot to sh#t, rendering the tanks useless until repaired and there is no AA or RAC for tanks to drag them back to Poland for repair.

 

Iraqi tanks comprised 700 t72's which were easily beaten by Western armour, and the same tank upgraded is being used by the Russians,they do have the t14, but from what is being said it's all dressed up but underneath it doesn't possess the capability to go head to head with Western armour,you also mention poorly trained Iraqis,there are a lot of reports from captured russian crew that they are given minimal training, and looking at a lot of the videos where they are destroyed they have little operational awareness, have been easily led to pinch points or been sat in the open.

I do agree on the maintenance side of things, challenger can be temperamental,and Abram runs on jet fuel and has a very complex servicing regime.but leopard is plentiful and parts in abundance from all the surrounding NATO countries,

As you say first round on target wins and in challenger, Abrams and leopard you have the three fastest sighting and firing battle tanks in the world.

 

 

[henry d]

@welsh1 thanks for your insightful posts 👍🏻

[enfieldspares]

12 hours ago, Stonepark said:

In a tank battle, first round on target wins.

This. No longer fire, observe, adjust, fire again. Even with the the old ranging machine gun, of bang, bang, bang, as per Chieftain* it was still thus so. But nowadays with laser rangefinders to which the gun is regulated to the rule is deadly. If you can see it you you can hit it and of you can hit it you can kill it. First to fire decides the matter.

But will Challenger be like Oscar Carius's Jagdtiger of WWII? Great on paper but without spares, ammunition of effective means of recovery of broken down merely a semi-movable (but very deadly) mobile anti-tank pillbox. Like the King piece in chess. I think both Challenger and Abrams are more political than practical. Leopard is going to be the real Queen and maid of all work.

* A friend in a TA Parachute Company thought it would be amusing to take a ball pein hammer on live firing exercise at Suffield in Canada once. He went up to a Chieftain from its blind side and banged his hammer three times on the tank. The crew bailed out in seconds thinking the worst. They were not too pleased with him once they'd gotten both feet back up on the ground!

Edited January 26, 2023 by enfieldspares

[Rem260]

Unfortunately if the Russians manage to deploy top attack munitions. Then I am afraid that western tanks will be just as vulnerable as the Russian tanks. They may not blow the turrets off in a catastrophic explosion but will still be penetrated none the less. Just look at open hatches to see how thin a tanks upper armour is. Nato tactics rely on the all arms tactic of everyone working together. It's no good just having infantry support without air and artillery cover.   Sadly air cover is lacking for the Ukrainians. Once western tanks are spotted the full repertoire of Russian hardware will be brought to bear. They will be the number one priority target in order to send a psychological and political message. I haven't seen any news reports so far that have shown the Ukrainians using the all arms tactics. The west may have better tanks but that doesn't make them impervious to modern anti tank weapons. The best use would be to hold in reserve and use for the big push once a situation could be exploited. Then replaced and used elsewhere. However this can not be achieved as Russian air superiority will find and track them once deployed. As long a Russia can supply its millitary then sadly I think western tanks will be littered around Ukraine just as much as thier Russian counterparts. 

 

[oowee]

11 hours ago, welsh1 said:

Iraqi tanks comprised 700 t72's which were easily beaten by Western armour, and the same tank upgraded is being used by the Russians,they do have the t14, but from what is being said it's all dressed up but underneath it doesn't possess the capability to go head to head with Western armour,you also mention poorly trained Iraqis,there are a lot of reports from captured russian crew that they are given minimal training, and looking at a lot of the videos where they are destroyed they have little operational awareness, have been easily led to pinch points or been sat in the open.

I do agree on the maintenance side of things, challenger can be temperamental,and Abram runs on jet fuel and has a very complex servicing regime.but leopard is plentiful and parts in abundance from all the surrounding NATO countries,

As you say first round on target wins and in challenger, Abrams and leopard you have the three fastest sighting and firing battle tanks in the world.

 

 

Whilst the US has said Abrams will be supplied the news suggests they will not be from stock and will have to be built first. Maybe its simply an agreement to allow the Germans to commit the Tiger. 

[welsh1]

26 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

This. No longer fire, observe, adjust, fire again. Even with the the old ranging machine gun, of bang, bang, bang, as per Chieftain* it was still thus so. But nowadays with laser rangefinders to which the gun is regulated to the rule is deadly. If you can see it you you can hit it and of you can hit it you can kill it. First to fire decides the matter.

But will Challenger be like Oscar Carius's Jagdtiger of WWII? Great on paper but without spares, ammunition of effective means of recovery of broken down merely a semi-movable (but very deadly) mobile anti-tank pillbox. Like the King piece in chess. I think both Challenger and Abrams are more political than practical. Leopard is going to be the real Queen and maid of all work.

* A friend in a TA Parachute Company thought it would be amusing to take a ball pein hammer on live firing exercise at Suffield in Canada once. He went up to a Chieftain from its blind side and banged his hammer three times on the tank. The crew bailed out in seconds thinking the worst. They were not too pleased with him once they'd gotten both feet back up on the ground!

Challenger is a battle proven tanlk, in the gulf war they claimed 300 enemy tanks for no loses and also the longest kill for a battle tank it also was in iraq.the commander in a challenger is searching and inputting the next target while the gunner is firing at a previous inputted target, they are highly efficient and a good crew has a very high kill rate.

As for your mate and his hammer lol, BLIND SIDE what blind side?and a hammer banged on a challenger, like a gnat on a donkeys backside.

"Optical and thermal imager sights are provided for both the Commander and Gunner, including an independent 360ᵒ panoramic sight for the Commander. The sighting systems, turret and gun are fully stabilised enabling rapid target engagement when static and on the move."

[toontastic]

6 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Challenger is a battle proven tanlk, in the gulf war they claimed 300 enemy tanks for no loses and also the longest kill for a battle tank it also was in iraq.the commander in a challenger is searching and inputting the next target while the gunner is firing at a previous inputted target, they are highly efficient and a good crew has a very high kill rate.

As for your mate and his hammer lol, BLIND SIDE what blind side?and a hammer banged on a challenger, like a gnat on a donkeys backside.

"Optical and thermal imager sights are provided for both the Commander and Gunner, including an independent 360ᵒ panoramic sight for the Commander. The sighting systems, turret and gun are fully stabilised enabling rapid target engagement when static and on the move."

Don't forget the most important person, the loader/radio operator. We set the rate of fire by how quick we are. 

[Rem260]

2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Challenger is a battle proven tanlk, in the gulf war they claimed 300 enemy tanks for no loses and also the longest kill for a battle tank it also was in iraq.the commander in a challenger is searching and inputting the next target while the gunner is firing at a previous inputted target, they are highly efficient and a good crew has a very high kill rate.

As for your mate and his hammer lol, BLIND SIDE what blind side?and a hammer banged on a challenger, like a gnat on a donkeys backside.

"Optical and thermal imager sights are provided for both the Commander and Gunner, including an independent 360ᵒ panoramic sight for the Commander. The sighting systems, turret and gun are fully stabilised enabling rapid target engagement when static and on the move."

Unfortunately mate that was a totally different ball game Air superiority was the key. Even without it the enemy where generally static and to the front. It wasn't a 360 battle. As I stated in my previous post unless used in the all arms battle group with air superiority they are vulnerable.

[enfieldspares]

6 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

As for your mate and his hammer lol, BLIND SIDE what blind side?and a hammer banged on a challenger, like a gnat on a donkeys backside.

 

It wasn't on a Challenger it was on a Chieftain on a live firing exercise at Suffield and the crew believed it to be the three hits from a ranging machine gun from another Chieftain. And Chieftain did have a blind side or rather a blind spot under certain circumstances. 

[Rem260]

8 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Don't forget the most important person, the loader/radio operator. We set the rate of fire by how quick we are. 

Unfortunately hampered by its 2 piece ammo. I heard that the reason we didn't do well at the Cat Cup was that the rest used 1 piece ammo and that made them on average faster.

[ditchman]

some really interesting valid points in this thread.......stuff i had never even thought about...........alot of folk see tanks as a stand alone force.....whereas the tank now-a-days is only truly effective as part of a package.....CAP......Infantary......supply logistics

i think tanks will be effective in Ukraine.....but only for a short while ...as they will not be part of a package.............Abrahams tanks are virtually out of the equation as they are saying it will be at least a year before any are delivered........

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, all seems to me to little to late, 🤔 

[welsh1]

23 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Unfortunately mate that was a totally different ball game Air superiority was the key. Even without it the enemy where generally static and to the front. It wasn't a 360 battle. As I stated in my previous post unless used in the all arms battle group with air superiority they are vulnerable.

I have stated in earlier posts that tanks operate with other arms to be effective, do you honestly think that the people who have been/ are being trained for these challengers are being shown how a battle group operate, and are being shown best practice by the relevent countries.

[welsh1]

27 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

It wasn't on a Challenger it was on a Chieftain on a live firing exercise at Suffield and the crew believed it to be the three hits from a ranging machine gun from another Chieftain. And Chieftain did have a blind side or rather a blind spot under certain circumstances. 

If you were being fired upon by small arms from another chieftan, would you 

A- sit tight in you armoured chiftan that is going to be safe from small arms, call him lots of names over the battle group net, and laugh as the range wardens ripped him a new one.
B - Panic on a live firing exercise , de bus into possibly live small arms fire risking getting cut to pieces.

Having been on live firing in Canada as Engineer support to both chieftan and challenger i think i would go with option A.

Your mates story is up there with using an axe to chop thier way into an armoured vehicle.

[welsh1]

Here is a quiz question for you.
 

What is the largest armoured vehicle the British Army have?

[toontastic]

4 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Here is a quiz question for you.
 

What is the largest armoured vehicle the British Army have?

Coming from recce I think I know the answer, because we ofter had to wait for your lot to catch up with us. Is it that bridge layer.

[ditchman]

8 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Here is a quiz question for you.
 

What is the largest armoured vehicle the British Army have?

a recovery tank

[welsh1]

10 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Coming from recce I think I know the answer, because we ofter had to wait for your lot to catch up with us. Is it that bridge layer.

 Winner

[toontastic]

3 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

 Winner

Always liked seeing RE playing with their toys, especially giant viper.

[welsh1]

2 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Always liked seeing RE playing with their toys, especially giant viper.

Giant viper had a big bang for your bucks lol, it's now been replaced by Python, same idea just updated.
And for a bit of interest, the tower in the back ground is one of many i and my section put up all over Batus, their purpose was to be able to see three of them at any time and triangulate your position, now you just look on google maps lol.

 

[Rem260]

39 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

I have stated in earlier posts that tanks operate with other arms to be effective, do you honestly think that the people who have been/ are being trained for these challengers are being shown how a battle group operate, and are being shown best practice by the relevent countries.

You can show them all the tactics you want but without continued air superiority it's all academic. 

[toontastic]

2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Giant viper had a big bang for your bucks lol, it's now been replaced by Python, same idea just updated.
And for a bit of interest, the tower in the back ground is one of many i and my section put up all over Batus, their purpose was to be able to see three of them at any time and triangulate your position, now you just look on google maps lol.

 

Funnily enough I was working at BATUS when I used to watch the vipers being deployed.

[welsh1]

Made me laugh.