Tanks in war

[Black Panther]

hi,
what is the role of a tank in war?
ur views needed.
regards.

 

[HAIDER]

Majority of time a sitting duck. So many light tank killers in the market. Example recent Hizbo-Israel conflict. But in Pak-India conflict, light weight tanks has better role specially in marshy area and NWFP wild terrain to control militant standoff.

 

[Beskar]

Tanks major role in a battlefield is to overwhelm the enemy positions and Infantry-held lines by using sheer fire power, mobility and manoeuvres, along with mechanized infantry which provides assistance and later helps in securing the confronted targets.

It's an "offensive" terror weapon on a battlefield and also serves as a "defensive" weapon.

On a side note, didn't you say that you were in the Army? How come you don't know this basic information about tank's role in a battlefield?

 

[Kumar]

In the even of war tanks should be supported by respective air force.

The best example is Battle of Longewala.

 

[hj786]

In the even of war tanks should be supported by respective air force.

The best example is Battle of Longewala.

LMAO some of you guys have such big egos. Sorry, but no its not. (In Indian dreams, maybe.) The best examples are the German blitzkrieg assaults of World War 2 and the US tank assaults of Gulf War 1.

In WW2, the Germans proved that mechanised infantry supported by a tactically-minded air force could keep up such a fast-paced offensive that nobody could build effective defenses against it in time - if they did, the luftwaffe would come over and show em whats up.

In GW1, the yanks proved the network-centric warfare concept. The Iraqi defenses didn't matter because not only were their tanks inferior, their supply lines and command structure were destroyed by air strikes. The yanks had lots of intelligence, they could find anything important and destroy it while the Iraqi tanks sat there eating depleted uranium rounds.

I aint no expert on this, but in no way is some Indian offensive the best example of using tactical air support in a tank battle.

Whenever people talk about tank combat, they talk about WW2 and the Gulf War. NOT the Indo-Pak wars.

 

[Black Panther]

Tanks major role in a battlefield is to overwhelm the enemy positions and Infantry-held lines by using sheer fire power, mobility and manoeuvres, along with mechanized infantry which provides assistance and later helps in securing the confronted targets.

It's an "offensive" terror weapon on a battlefield and also serves as a "defensive" weapon.

On a side note, didn't you say that you were in the Army? How come you don't know this basic information about tank's role in a battlefield?

hi
O yaar main aap logo k views ly raha hun es main myry army main hony na hony ka kaya matter hai? i'm serving the Army.WERE was not a correct Verb.
any ways ur review was good.
regards.

 

[Shiny Capstar]

Tanks are an asset that must be kept in the hat until the right time. When they can be used as a decisive force working with Armoured Infantry, there are far too many threats these days to leave them out in the firing line all the time. Of course that only applies for some situations.

 

[S-2]

"In GW1, the yanks proved the network-centric warfare concept."

No. We weren't fully digitally networked by any stretch. What GW1 validated was the AirLand Battle Concept (after-the-fact) and the combined warfare concept.

It was a post-mortem validation of NATO's warfighting operational theories and our ability to plan, budget, produce technologies, and implement doctrines that allowed for combined warfare.

"Joint" is inter-service. "Combined" is internat'l. It's a fair indication by the seamlessness with which the British 7th Armoured Div was integrated with VII Corps mission of how those same operations may have been executed in the Fulda Gap.

The Iraqis willingly complied with our experiment by providing forces equipped in second-rate Soviet gear and operating on loose Soviet principles of defensive warfare.

It was a laboratory. The world took seven months to gather in an empty desert in the midst of nowhere and proceeded to knock the snot out of each other with their latest and greatest. 'Course, "each other" is a bit of a stretch.

We were all wondering...

ODS told us a lot though I doubt it'll have much use for the future. We'll see. What goes around usually comes around.

 

[hj786]

In GW1, the yanks proved the network-centric warfare concept.

No. We weren't fully digitally networked by any stretch. What GW1 validated was the AirLand Battle Concept (after-the-fact) and the combined warfare concept.

Yes that! Should I have said Gulf War 2 proved network-centric warfare instead? (i need to quit typing when i dunno what i'm on about)

It was a post-mortem validation of NATO's warfighting operational theories and our ability to plan, budget, produce technologies, and implement doctrines that allowed for combined warfare.

"Joint" is inter-service. "Combined" is internat'l. It's a fair indication by the seamlessness with which the British 7th Armoured Div was integrated with III Corps mission of how those same operations may have been executed in the Fulda Gap.

The Iraqis willingly complied with our experiment by providing forces equipped in second-rate Soviet gear and operating on loose Soviet principles of defensive warfare.

It was a laboratory. The world took seven months to gather in an empty desert in the midst of nowhere and proceeded to knock the snot out of each other with their latest and greatest. 'Course, "each other" is a bit of a stretch.

We were all wondering...

ODS told us a lot though I doubt it'll have much use for the future. We'll see. What goes around usually comes around.

Thanks for explaining!
AirLand Battle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It says in this article that "AirLand Battle emphasized close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front line enemy forces."
So I guess I was right in saying:

"The Iraqi defenses didn't matter because not only were their tanks inferior, their supply lines and command structure were destroyed by air strikes. The yanks had lots of intelligence, they could find anything important and destroy it while the Iraqi tanks sat there eating depleted uranium rounds."

Also, what does it mean by "aggressively maneuvering defense"?

 

[S-2]

"Also, what does it mean by "aggressively maneuvering defense"?"

Prior to Air-Land Battle, our defense strategy in Europe was predicated on forward basing and "active defense". This was a concept where you manuever to stack forces at the point of emphasis or penetration by the opponent.

Problem was that the echeloned manner in which the Soviet Union intended to attack NATO meant that our forces would be defeated in detail over a series of attrition battles. It also committed our forces decisively and placed the Soviets inside our decision-cycle by dictating the battle's tempo.

Air-Land Battle reversed this. Not only did it liberate our smaller forces from being decisively engaged in a massive battle of attrition, it promised to allow us to ATTACK where possible into the operational depths of the enemy at those nodes that would degenerate and paralyze.

There was controversy. The German Army was displeased that we wouldn't throw everything into the balance with full participation in a forward defense. Needless to say, they preferred the notion of stopping the Soviets as far forward as possible.

We were more worried about how to stop them at all.

Deep attack became synonymous airland battle. FM 100-5 OPERATIONS (1983 I think) details the concept.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

putting in simples words....

"To punch holes in enemy's defense formations and to provide fire support"

The tank is like the knight in the medieval wars. They are heavily armoured cavalry and Infantry units that with their sheer strength and armour destroys the front formation of the enemy.

I cant think of any easier way of explaining the use of tanks in modern warfare.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

LMAO some of you guys have such big egos. Sorry, but no its not. (In Indian dreams, maybe.) The best examples are the German blitzkrieg assaults of World War 2 and the US tank assaults of Gulf War 1.

In WW2, the Germans proved that mechanised infantry supported by a tactically-minded air force could keep up such a fast-paced offensive that nobody could build effective defenses against it in time - if they did, the luftwaffe would come over and show em whats up.

In GW1, the yanks proved the network-centric warfare concept. The Iraqi defenses didn't matter because not only were their tanks inferior, their supply lines and command structure were destroyed by air strikes. The yanks had lots of intelligence, they could find anything important and destroy it while the Iraqi tanks sat there eating depleted uranium rounds.

I aint no expert on this, but in no way is some Indian offensive the best example of using tactical air support in a tank battle.

Whenever people talk about tank combat, they talk about WW2 and the Gulf War. NOT the Indo-Pak wars.

Well in World War II the Russians also used the combination of IL-2 and the T 34 when the German army came. Air support with the help of tanks are better than only tanks. And Longewala showed tanks need good air support. If u watch closely the war if the PA had called in for air support the PA tanks would have had the whole of Rajasthan with them.

 

[hj786]

"Also, what does it mean by "aggressively maneuvering defense"?"

Prior to Air-Land Battle, our defense strategy in Europe was predicated on forward basing and "active defense". This was a concept where you manuever to stack forces at the point of emphasis or penetration by the opponent.

Problem was that the echeloned manner in which the Soviet Union intended to attack NATO meant that our forces would be defeated in detail over a series of attrition battles. It also committed our forces decisively and placed the Soviets inside our decision-cycle by dictating the battle's tempo.

Air-Land Battle reversed this. Not only did it liberate our smaller forces from being decisively engaged in a massive battle of attrition, it promised to allow us to ATTACK where possible into the operational depths of the enemy at those nodes that would degenerate and paralyze.

There was controversy. The German Army was displeased that we wouldn't throw everything into the balance with full participation in a forward defense. Needless to say, they preferred the notion of stopping the Soviets as far forward as possible.

We were more worried about how to stop them at all.

Deep attack became synonymous airland battle. FM 100-5 OPERATIONS (1983 I think) details the concept.

OK my understanding of that is that the Soviets wanted to make massive thrusts with superior numbers. Using Active Defense, NATO would send forces to take up defensive positions wherever the soviet thrusts were concentrated. But this would lead to battles of attrition which numerically superior soviets could overrun the defenses and win. Also, this meant the soviets would decide where NATO forces were committed, so they could decide where battles happen and fight wherever their position was better. NATO would also be predictable and soviets could take steps to pre-empt them.

NATO's Air Land battle plan was to counter the soviets by sending forces to maneuver around the soviet thrusts and hit their weak points, that way the Soviets wouldnt be in control of NATO's decisions and NATO would only hit the Soviets where and when it could beat them.
So aggressively maneuvering defense means that rather than NATO just sitting there and defending, the "defenders" would go attack the soviets at their weak points, such as the logistics network working behind the scenes and supplying the advancing Soviet forces, with the air force helping them out rather than trying to take out all the Soviet tanks and so on.

I guess the Germans didn't like that because that meant the Soviet thrusts could reach Germany before NATO would stop them and wreak havoc on the place in the ensuing battles?

 

[S-2]

"I guess the Germans didn't like that because that meant the Soviet thrusts could reach Germany before NATO would stop them and wreak havoc on the place in the ensuing battles?"

We might have been adhering to an "active defense" but the Germans were following a "forward defense". One devolved to a mathematical solution set. The other offered catastrophic and immediate defeat.

We absolutely intended to give battle by every and any manner possible to lead elements of advancing Soviet forces. However, we needed a doctrine and equipment that would allow us to see and attack deep simultaneously. How could we diminish, degrade, delay, or terminate a Soviet assault without offering ourselves as sacrificial lambs to the slaughter.

Apache, Bradley, Abrams, and MLRS were the answers in equipment. Better and different training to re-establish an offensive spirit were the tactical component. Last was intel-finding the follow-on echelons became critical. Once identified we could begin attacking with BAI and MLRS/ATACMS.

Finally, we learned that not all targets needed to be kinetically attacked to be neutralized or suppressed. There existed other means to degrade these targets. In some instances, it was even preferable to allow their continued and unimpeded operation-particularly where their efforts couldn't diminish OUR objectives.

At that point, it's a race to get inside each other's decision cycle. Once there, true exploitation across the full spectrum becomes possible.

In short, airland battle restored our physical and mental agility.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Have to give it to the Soviets for building such a massive armed force, i mean even a massive military alliance such as NATO was worried about them.