That is the question that Stephen Green asks in his PJMedia column. And, its a good question.
I was a tank officer for many years, and that question has been asked since the tank's unveiling in World War I. Lots of folks over the years have talked about the demise of the tank. And, it's true that a bunch of Russian tanks have been burned out i Ukraine. Missiles can do a number on a tank. Since the invention of the man-portable antitank missile in the '70s, armored warfare has been a continued source of innovation and reaction.
The infantry loves tanks on the battlefield.. They call tanks "missile magnets", because a couple of tans on the battlefield tend to focus the enemy firepower. The enemy wants those tanks knocked out, and they will pretty much ignore the foot soldier until the armored vehicles are defeated.
But, there is still a place for a tank on the battlefield. It's impossible to carry as much raw firepower as a single tank routinely carries. It's why Stormiin' Norman led with the tanks in his end-run around the Iraqi army.
People have asked for generations if the tank is obsolete. I do know that there is nothing that concentrates raw offensive power n the way that a company of tanks does. It's all in how you employ them.
4 comments:
PawPaw,
You're right about raw firepower. And the same was true of battleships, which did the same on water as the tanks do on land.
Hmm. The Japanese showed that battleships were obsolete, and I think the Ukrainians are showing something similar with tanks.
I'm thinking that it's time to reconsider the mission, and the tools to provide it.
Ed / Dallas
I think the last sentence in your post hit the nail squarely on the head. "It's all in how you employ them." Combined Arms isn't something the Russians seem able to do at any effective level. Every problem has a solution and a tool to be used. Using the right tool in the wrong way is as bad as using the wrong tool.
Agreed. We talk about Combined Arms for a reason. Most of what I've seen about Russian tanks getting destroyed is when they're on their own, without infantry, air, or artillery support.
In the Soviet era, Combined Arms was a BIG deal and something they worked hard at - that seems to have changed.
As a former Grunt (Infantryman 1975-1978) I'll throw my .02 into the mix. It appears the russian army is living in the past WWII (the great patriotic war to the (russians) to be exact. Apparently they thought they could just throw Tanks into battle without proper artillery support and Infantry to clear out Anti Tank team. Russian artillery is not known for its precision in WWII they lined the guns up hub to hub and flattened the target. It appears they tried that in this conflict and then sent in the tanks with NO infantry support and the tanks get destroyed and they are at a loss as to what to do. We used to be trained to target the Commanders tank (the one with extra radio antennas) first then the others.
The russian tankers appear to be unwilling to go after the Ukrainians Antitank teams. They stop in the kill zone and or desert their vehicles. Modern tactics are to get out of the kill zone and then attack the ambushers either with your own weapons or call in artillery. But it appears that russian artillery is not up to the task.
Post a Comment