Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
You can't label a tank's destruction or damaging as failure. If (most of ) the crew survives, or tends to survive at a higher rate than in comparable vehicles, then it has been a succes at at least one of the things what it has been designed for.
Any tank or armored vehicle put in an urban combat situation is at risk of damage or destruction. A full combined arms approach can limit the risk (esp. close cooperation with infantry) but cannot eliminate it. Urban warfare simply is costly that way.
Only ignorant people believe tank (even the most modern ones) are somehow invincible or invulnerable. A modern ICF with 35-40mm cannon can take out any tank, just not always from the frontal arc or the longest range. So can AT(G)W equipped infantry groups, esp. if they isolate and surround the target (single or multiple vehicles) and attack from multiple directions at once. That is not a failure of the tank or armored vehicle in question.
Any tank or armored vehicle put in an urban combat situation is at risk of damage or destruction. A full combined arms approach can limit the risk (esp. close cooperation with infantry) but cannot eliminate it. Urban warfare simply is costly that way.
Only ignorant people believe tank (even the most modern ones) are somehow invincible or invulnerable. A modern ICF with 35-40mm cannon can take out any tank, just not always from the frontal arc or the longest range. So can AT(G)W equipped infantry groups, esp. if they isolate and surround the target (single or multiple vehicles) and attack from multiple directions at once. That is not a failure of the tank or armored vehicle in question.