Vietnam Defence Forum

[Nilgiri]

After studying the war in Yemen, these vehicles seem to be sitting ducks for RPG's.

It's almost as if 5 soldier armed with RPG-29 can take out tanks, APC's, or combat 4x4 like the ones above. You can't beat that kind of trade off. It's like trading a pawn for a rook in every fight. The Saudi's are going to go broke fighting the Houthi who aren't even interested in heavy weapons platform. After they disable it with an RPG or two, they blow it up.

It may be that Saudi's just aren't effective fighters.

They're just having a field day with Saudi mechanized. What i don't understand is, why they do not salvage any of the vehicles they disable. They should at least remove the machine guns from those vehicle. If you compare this to Vietnam, they salvage un-exploded bombs. These would be a gold mine.

Saudis invested a lot into hardware, not enough into software. Software you need to have that natural drive and struggle and perseverance....that you inherit from sweat, toil and blood. It cannot be done "top down".

 

[TenLua]

Saudis invested a lot into hardware, not enough into software. Software you need to have that natural drive and struggle and perseverance....that you inherit from sweat, toil and blood. It cannot be done "top down".

It's painful to watch all those lovely looking hardware getting destroyed so easily.

Vietnam should reduce tank purchases and invest money and some R&D for something like the American M3. I can see these messing shit up.

 

[Viet]

After studying the war in Yemen, these vehicles seem to be sitting ducks for RPG's.

It's almost as if 5 soldier armed with RPG-29 can take out tanks, APC's, or combat 4x4 like the ones above. You can't beat that kind of trade off. It's like trading a pawn for a rook in every fight. The Saudi's are going to go broke fighting the Houthi who aren't even interested in heavy weapons platform. After they disable it with an RPG or two, they blow it up.

It may be that Saudi's just aren't effective fighters.

They're just having a field day with Saudi mechanized. What i don't understand is, why they do not salvage any of the vehicles they disable. They should at least remove the machine guns from those vehicle. If you compare this to Vietnam, they salvage un-exploded bombs. These would be a gold mine.

Light armored verhicle only offers limited protection, so against indirect assaults or roadside bombs, can never withstand a direct hit of modern RPGs. If the Syria rebels destroyed Turk heavy armored Leopard tanks with ease by antitank missile, how can light vehicle survive?

In general tanks are unsuitable in fighting in cities. Not since the battle of Stalingrad.

 

[Viet]

Taiwan

The island of the free world is a bit disappointed, because Vietnam sticks to one China policy, even signs a statement opposing any Taiwanese independence movement during the high level visit to Beijing. I think the Taiwanese people should not worry, it is a piece of paper, in reality we Vietnam and Taiwan are on the same boat, they can always rely on friendship and helping hands with Vietnam. Look, Vietnamese tourists to Taiwan rise to a record number in April (151% plus), while Chinese mainlanders are in free fall. Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen can be happy.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/05/17/2003670752

 

[AViet]

Taiwan

The island of the free world is a bit disappointed, because Vietnam sticks to one China policy, even signs a statement opposing any Taiwanese independence movement during the high level visit to Beijing. I think the Taiwanese people should not worry, it is a piece of paper, in reality we Vietnam and Taiwan are on the same boat, they can always rely on friendship and helping hands with Vietnam. Look, Vietnamese tourists to Taiwan rise to a record number in April (151% plus), while Chinese mainlanders are in free fall. Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen can be happy.

View attachment 398044

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/05/17/2003670752

Do not understand what you are saying, Viet.

If you are talking about no. of Chinese tourists coming to Vietnam this year, it is 1.27 millions for first 4 months of 2017, an increase of 61.1% compared to same period last year.

About Vietnamese tourists going to China, I have no data. Can you show us the link?

 

[Viet]

Do not understand what you are saying, Viet.

If you are talking about no. of Chinese tourists coming to Vietnam this year, it is 1.27 millions for first 4 months of 2017, an increase of 61.1% compared to same period last year.

About Vietnamese tourists going to China, I have no data. Can you show us the link?

2.2 million Vietnamese made holiday in China last year 2016. I have no number for this year yet, but I expect the number will rise by 10%.
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/go...-beijing--beginning-state-visit-to-china.html

the number of Vietnamese tourists to Taiwan rises by 151% in April. we started at a low base though, not comparable yet to richer nations as Korea and Japan.
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3167767

 

[Viet]

Minh Nguyệt, the spokeswoman of Vietnam military TV

@Nilgiri

 

[Nilgiri]

Light armored verhicle only offers limited protection, so against indirect assaults or roadside bombs, can never withstand a direct hit of modern RPGs. If the Syria rebels destroyed Turk heavy armored Leopard tanks with ease by antitank missile, how can light vehicle survive?

In general tanks are unsuitable in fighting in cities. Not since the battle of Stalingrad.

Yup Russians learned that the hard way themselves when they sent tank columns into Grozny in the mid to late 90s IIRC several times (and suffered tremendously in those actions).

Ironic they didnt learn from stalingrad when they established that reality. Open plains, deserts and grasslands are a more natural tank environment.....cities and even canyons/valleys etc....are when they are made vulnerable.

 

[TenLua]

Light armored verhicle only offers limited protection, so against indirect assaults or roadside bombs, can never withstand a direct hit of modern RPGs. If the Syria rebels destroyed Turk heavy armored Leopard tanks with ease by antitank missile, how can light vehicle survive?

In general tanks are unsuitable in fighting in cities. Not since the battle of Stalingrad.

Why? Because RPGs only work in the cities?

Tanks should be phased out. They were intended to break trench warefare stalemates. But if with modern RPGs easily destroying a mechanized battalion, as shown above, which included one of the best tank in the world, the Abrams tanks, it just not a wise investment. I'll take a 500 for 5 million trade in any case.

Tanks won WW1, aircraft won WW2, missiles will win WW3, provided winning is even possible in WW3.

Yup Russians learned that the hard way themselves when they sent tank columns into Grozny in the mid to late 90s IIRC several times (and suffered tremendously in those actions).

Ironic they didnt learn from stalingrad when they established that reality. Open plains, deserts and grasslands are a more natural tank environment.....cities and even canyons/valleys etc....are when they are made vulnerable.

1000 tanks vs 15000 RPG/recoiless rifle equipped dug in soldier on the open plaines. I can't see the tanks surviving. Obviously, just my opinion. You may have more knowledge to formulate your opnions on than me, but from operation Iraqi freedom, had Saddam integrated more RPG/infantry based anti-armor in his tank battles, his tanks may not have gotten steem rolled by US Abrams.

 

[Nilgiri]

1000 tanks vs 15000 RPG/recoiless rifle equipped dug in soldier on the open plaines. I can't see the tanks surviving. Obviously, just my opinion. You may have more knowledge to formulate your opnions on than me, but from operation Iraqi freedom, had Saddam integrated more RPG/infantry based anti-armor in his tank battles, his tanks may not have gotten steem rolled by US Abrams.

Yah obviously open plains are not going to be easy these days either....not since yom kippur when the sagger teams scored multiple hits on israeli armour....and everyone took cues from that.

But it is easier for tanks compared to cities and enclosed ravines...you can load tanks up with anti-personnel ammo to deploy on open fields and lose a lot fewer (you are going to lose some obviously) as soon as the bearing and distance of the bogie is revealed (by firing).....compared to cities where the adversary has many more resources like elevation, roof tops, alleyways etc....that tank main gun simply cannot cover effectively....and the info on the engagement is slow to establish and changes much quicker anyway too.

If you commit fully to recoiless rifles and RPGs etc in open field, that makes the defense vulnerable to artillery and CAS....these days UAVs, recon and satellites play a big role in helping the armoured formations find the correct routes in the first place to give them the best advantage.

Its endless cat and mouse game basically. Whoever is best prepared overall will win....you are right that saddam went too hard on the armour numbers without beefing up anti-armour and armour support (CAS + recon)....but he never planned on taking on a full fledged superpower....at most to take on Iran....roughly a peer.

 

[jhungary]

Why? Because RPGs only work in the cities?

Tanks should be phased out. They were intended to break trench warefare stalemates. But if with modern RPGs easily destroying a mechanized battalion, as shown above, which included one of the best tank in the world, the Abrams tanks, it just not a wise investment. I'll take a 500 for 5 million trade in any case.

Tanks won WW1, aircraft won WW2, missiles will win WW3, provided winning is even possible in WW3.



1000 tanks vs 15000 RPG/recoiless rifle equipped dug in soldier on the open plaines. I can't see the tanks surviving. Obviously, just my opinion. You may have more knowledge to formulate your opnions on than me, but from operation Iraqi freedom, had Saddam integrated more RPG/infantry based anti-armor in his tank battles, his tanks may not have gotten steem rolled by US Abrams.

You missed the cue completely.......

Today war is a combine arms warfare, which mean any one single unit itself cannot survive a battle. Be it tanks, fighters, RPG soldiers, Artillery and etc.

Think about it like this, how are you going to deploy 15000 RPG soldier in the field to defend a line? People move at around 2km/h, a RPG soldier can at most cover 2 km wide line in a single hour. But in a tank, you cover 2 km in about 1.5 minutes, by the time your soldier get to where the tanks was the tanks would have been gone 58 minutes ago.

Now, ty bunch the RPG guys up on a truck, and deploy a bunch of them quicker? The problem now would be, the guys is at their most risk when they are being transported in a truck, so how are you going to protect those truck or APC from A to B? I know? Why not we get some Tanks?

RPG soldiers may be good to have to defend a city, but when you are in an offensive or try to defend a wide open area, foot soldier's low mobility would become a baggage.

Tanks are used in Urban environment, in an offensive with infantry support, no trained tanker (I was a commander of a Bradley Platoon) would move into a city unsupported. You wait for troop support to clear out the area before you move in, in turn you protect the flank of the soldiers so they can protect you. This is how the war fought today. And that is what you got wrong.

@Davos may be more helpful on the subject, he is a Gunner on an Aussie Abrams

 

[TenLua]

Yah obviously open plains are not going to be easy these days either....not since yom kippur when the sagger teams scored multiple hits on israeli armour....and everyone took cues from that.

But it is easier for tanks compared to cities and enclosed ravines...you can load tanks up with anti-personnel ammo to deploy on open fields and lose a lot fewer (you are going to lose some obviously) as soon as the bearing and distance of the bogie is revealed (by firing).....compared to cities where the adversary has many more resources like elevation, roof tops, alleyways etc....that tank main gun simply cannot cover effectively....and the info on the engagement is slow to establish and changes much quicker anyway too.

If you commit fully to recoiless rifles and RPGs etc in open field, that makes the defense vulnerable to artillery and CAS....these days UAVs, recon and satellites play a big role in helping the armoured formations find the correct routes in the first place to give them the best advantage.

Its endless cat and mouse game basically. Whoever is best prepared overall will win....you are right that saddam went too hard on the armour numbers without beefing up anti-armour and armour support (CAS + recon)....but he never planned on taking on a full fledged superpower....at most to take on Iran....roughly a peer.

UAV, recon, and sat works both ways. In my opinion, artillery favors the defender over attackers. Of course you're not wrong. I'm just basing my point off of observation of the modern battlefield.

Western military have the luxury of air support on demand. They never really have to do any real fighting in this day and age. A single sniper will get an airstrike called in. It would be interesting to see what happens when that air support is nullified by heavy anti-air concentration.

 

[Viet]

Why? Because RPGs only work in the cities?

Tanks should be phased out. They were intended to break trench warefare stalemates. But if with modern RPGs easily destroying a mechanized battalion, as shown above, which included one of the best tank in the world, the Abrams tanks, it just not a wise investment. I'll take a 500 for 5 million trade in any case.

Tanks won WW1, aircraft won WW2, missiles will win WW3, provided winning is even possible in WW3.



1000 tanks vs 15000 RPG/recoiless rifle equipped dug in soldier on the open plaines. I can't see the tanks surviving. Obviously, just my opinion. You may have more knowledge to formulate your opnions on than me, but from operation Iraqi freedom, had Saddam integrated more RPG/infantry based anti-armor in his tank battles, his tanks may not have gotten steem rolled by US Abrams.

No Tank won't be obsolete. It is and will be the king on the ground. Tank is offensive weapon, but it only works best if conjunction with infantry, artillery and airforce. Sending tanks into uncovered territory is suicide, unless your tanks are well protected and move fast. RPG armed enemy regiments pose great risk to tanks for sure, but are many examples where tanks overran enemy heavy defensive positions. The decisive battle of Berlin in WW II came to my mind, where one million man army of deutsche wehrmacht were annihilated by repeated massive onslaughts of Soviet tank armies.

Or during the Vietnam war, the north Vietnamese launched a massive surprise attack with more than 300 tanks supported by infantry and artillery against the southern republican army in the DMZ. The Easter offensive of 1972. despite having more than 1,000 tanks, south Vietnamese army was overrun and were in full retreat, until US jumped in stopping North Vietnamese offensive by massive bombing raids.

Not many pictures were available. Supported by artillery fire, North Vietnamese T54/55 tanks moved into the position before the battle.

 

[Carlosa]

UAV, recon, and sat works both ways. In my opinion, artillery favors the defender over attackers. Of course you're not wrong. I'm just basing my point off of observation of the modern battlefield.

Western military have the luxury of air support on demand. They never really have to do any real fighting in this day and age. A single sniper will get an airstrike called in. It would be interesting to see what happens when that air support is nullified by heavy anti-air concentration.

You forgot about tanks with APS, good luck trying to hit them in open terrain.
In 2006, an Israeli Merkaba tank with the Trophy APS system defeated 7 anti tank missiles from Hezbollah.

 

[Viet]

Saudis invested a lot into hardware, not enough into software. Software you need to have that natural drive and struggle and perseverance....that you inherit from sweat, toil and blood. It cannot be done "top down".

From the news the Saudi go to full drive, buying $110 billion US military hardware, but only delusional people believe the Saudi army has a chance against the Israeli army. Ok good enough against Iran. True money is a precondition but not enough to build a formidable army. That reminds me of our big neighbor in the northern front. Winning a war is actually a scientific undertaking.