What is the main battle tank for? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What is the main battle tank for? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:37:26 AM EDT

[#1]

Chics dig armor.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:39:19 AM EDT

[#2]

They are for scareing the hell out of the enemy. If I saw a tank coming at me I would shit myself.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:44:07 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
If I saw a tank coming at me I would shit myself.

nah just pull the external fire extinguisher handle

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:41:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted: If I saw a tank coming at me I would shit myself.
nah just pull the external fire extinguisher handle

Man, if someone did that as a joke, he'd be greasing track for the rest of his life.

Posted: 12/14/2005 9:09:19 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
nah just pull the external fire extinguisher handle

We taped ours over so it wouldn't look so enticing to local kids.

NTM

Posted: 12/14/2005 9:21:45 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Well versed in the Soviets, thanks. Half my library is soviet studies materials.

Tanks were introduced to help break the stalemate of trench warfare. Tank vs infantry. The intial role of armor was to support the infantry. Of course it would be logical that the other side would build tanks to level the battlefield. Tank vs tank. So in this role, armor is there not to support infantry but to kill other tanks.

But now we have much more sophisticated air support.

Patton (sometimes) fancied himself as a modern day calvary leader. Is the tank the modern calvary, or the Apache?

Just to toss about.. I've heard* some say the MBT is dead in modern warfare and the army is/was planing to reduce the abrams to just 2 divisions and use stryker type vehicals as the main force because of better speed and range; and less maintence. So I've heard.

* Yes, hearsay.

Posted: 12/14/2005 9:39:20 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
We built tanks, planes, weapons, troops, etc. so that they would be unable to achieve their goals. The idea, originated by Ronald Reagan, was to create weapons so sophisticated that the USSR could not keep pace and would spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to keep up with us.

Did any of these weapons ever actually come into service in the US?

Pretty much everything I can think of pre-dates the Reagan years. MLRS is one exception, I think. Possibly Aegis. Everything else was well under way by the time Reagan came into office.

NTM

Posted: 12/14/2005 9:43:31 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What do the bad guys use thier tanks for then?
Harrassing the infantry?

for our target practice

Damn... beat me to it.

Posted: 12/14/2005 10:20:46 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We built tanks, planes, weapons, troops, etc. so that they would be unable to achieve their goals. The idea, originated by Ronald Reagan, was to create weapons so sophisticated that the USSR could not keep pace and would spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to keep up with us.

Did any of these weapons ever actually come into service in the US?

Pretty much everything I can think of pre-dates the Reagan years. MLRS is one exception, I think. Possibly Aegis. Everything else was well under way by the time Reagan came into office.

NTM

Those programs were on DOD drawing boards but largely unfunded.
Without Reagan, I doubt many or most of those programs would have been partially or fully fielded.

Posted: 12/14/2005 10:44:38 AM EDT

[#10]

Marine Corps is kinda doing the same thing. My Tank Bn. was stood down in July, we're now an ATFP Bn. Most of our tanks went to 2nd or 4th tanks, can't remember...

Posted: 12/14/2005 10:45:14 AM EDT

[#11]

Tanks R 4 crunchies

Posted: 12/14/2005 12:47:56 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The tank can be used to flank opposing forces, overrun opposing forces and occupy terrain. They can interdict supply convoys, block roads, destroy infrastructure, rundown infantry, provide direct-fire artillery, support infantry units and generally raise hell.

They are usually capable of busting tanks, as well, unless they're Russian.

The Soviets planned on putting 12,000+ MBTs and another 12,000 IFVs and 3,000 SP Artillery pieces on the offensive in Western Europe and simply run them to the French border, bypassing NATO strongholds and destroying NATO airbases. The Warsaw Pact hoped to run NATO forces out of fuel and supplies. Even with 90% losses, they expected gain control of Germany and hold it with a million troops.

Our defense called for laying down a carpet of mushroom clouds across their advance. That's the only thing that could stop them.

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:07:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Hienz Guderian and Erwin Rommel both wrote books detailing the proper use of armored forces prior to WWII. They are the Fathers of modern tank warefare. General Hienz Guderian's use of tanks during the Invasion of Poland, France and the USSR was the begining of it all.

Posted: 12/14/2005 2:08:36 PM EDT

[#14]

What is the main battle tank for?

.

For running down terrorist/insurgents and making there last moment's a painfull one.

Posted: 12/14/2005 2:14:33 PM EDT

[#15]

to kill the enemy

take on other MBTs, provide infantry support if necessary, level cities

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:15:55 PM EDT

[#16]

Bump

Posted: 12/15/2005 5:11:20 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The tank can be used to flank opposing forces, overrun opposing forces and occupy terrain. They can interdict supply convoys, block roads, destroy infrastructure, rundown infantry, provide direct-fire artillery, support infantry units and generally raise hell.

They are usually capable of busting tanks, as well, unless they're Russian.

The Soviets planned on putting 12,000+ MBTs and another 12,000 IFVs and 3,000 SP Artillery pieces on the offensive in Western Europe and simply run them to the French border, bypassing NATO strongholds and destroying NATO airbases. The Warsaw Pact hoped to run NATO forces out of fuel and supplies. Even with 90% losses, they expected gain control of Germany and hold it with a million troops.

Our defense called for laying down a carpet of mushroom clouds across their advance. That's the only thing that could stop them.

I once was on a field exercise in Germany, assigned to the brigade TOC. Not having much to do I watched the higher ups plan their nuclear response to an invasion across the Czech border.

They were laying tactical nukes from artillery in a double line for 40 MILES. Paired rounds, One K either side of the border.

Posted: 12/15/2005 8:08:29 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted: I once was on a field exercise in Germany, assigned to the brigade TOC. Not having much to do I watched the higher ups plan their nuclear response to an invasion across the Czech border. They were laying tactical nukes from artillery in a double line for 40 MILES. Paired rounds, One K either side of the border.

That's because an M1 can drive through that kind of fallout. The Russkies would never expect a counter-attack through a nucular explosion zone.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What is the main battle tank for? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us