Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/13/2005 7:07:30 PM EDT
I was watching a show tonight about how awesome the M1 Abrams is.

But it got me thinking, what is the role of such a tank? What do they shoot that 120mm gun at?

Is it mostly for shooting at mechanized infantry transports and then shot-type shells for shooting at machine gun nests and such so that your infantry has an easier time?

How does the infantry and the armor work together?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:08:09 PM EDT
Killing other tanks deader than hell.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:08:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyquik:
What do they shoot that 120mm gun at?



Cats
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:09:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Killing other tanks deader than hell.



+1

The main duty of a MBT is to kill other MBT's.

Disconnector
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:09:06 PM EDT
What do the bad guys use thier tanks for then?

Harrassing the infantry?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:09:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By crazyquik:
What do they shoot that 120mm gun at?



Cats



Heathen feral cats!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:09:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _disconnector_:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Killing other tanks deader than hell.



+1

The main duty of a MBT is to kill other MBT's.

Disconnector



Why not zap thier ass with Apache helicopters and A10 Warthogs?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:09:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyquik:
What do the bad guys use thier tanks for then?

Harrassing the infantry?



for our target practice
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:10:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyquik:

Originally Posted By _disconnector_:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Killing other tanks deader than hell.



+1

The main duty of a MBT is to kill other MBT's.

Disconnector



Why not zap thier ass with Apache helicopters and A10 Warthogs?



Can't let them fly-boys have all the fun!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:10:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyquik:

Originally Posted By _disconnector_:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Killing other tanks deader than hell.



+1

The main duty of a MBT is to kill other MBT's.

Disconnector



Why not zap thier ass with Apache helicopters and A10 Warthogs?



You don't occupy land from the air. It just helps.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:10:36 PM EDT
Shooting other tanks.

Kind of a waste though. The USSR/Warsaw pact would have swamped any resistance if they decided to take Europe. Thank god for the bomb.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:10:51 PM EDT
Set piece battles. Very valuable in desert environments.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:12:09 PM EDT
Ok, shooting other tanks.

Then what happens in a war where one side has no tanks?

I guess its like OIF? The tank-having side gets to run hell-for-leather towards the capital?

And no tanks on either side becomes trench warfare, guerilla warfare, or some other type of attrition war?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:12:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Shooting other tanks.

Kind of a waste though. The USSR/Warsaw pact would have swamped any resistance if they decided to take Europe. Thank god for the bomb.



Which is why we built the Apache and Warthog in the first place. Would have been a terrible battle, for sure.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:26:34 PM EDT
Are you quite young, by any chance? Long ago there was a country, called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They had hundreds of divisions in the Western part of their country. They wanted to expand their dominion to the Atlantic.

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. This idea was very successful and the USSR no longer exists.

However, several former client states of the USSR purchased their export products. Among those are the AKM and AKS rifles, T-34, T-55, T-62, T-72 tanks, Sukhoi and Mig airplanes. In order to protect the USA from these threats, we still deploy the M1 and M1 A1 tanks.

G
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:32:34 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:37:49 PM EDT
Ask yourself which units led the charge all the way to Baghdad and entered the city on "Rumble Runs" ?

G
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:39:36 PM EDT

Blowin stuff ALL the fuck up
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:40:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 7:43:07 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By crazyquik:

Originally Posted By _disconnector_:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Killing other tanks deader than hell.



+1

The main duty of a MBT is to kill other MBT's.

Disconnector



Why not zap thier ass with Apache helicopters and A10 Warthogs?



That has been a theory in Army Aviation for quite awhile… that the Apache could replace the main battle tank.

They tried it Iraq during the invasion and attacked a dug in Republican Guard unit out ahead of the main force… the Apaches got shot up pretty badly. I heard reports not a single helicopter got away unscathed. And the Republican Guard unit was still in place.

If you want to take and hold ground there is no substitute for the tank infantry combo.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:42:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Set piece battles. Very valuable in desert environments.



They have been very valuable in Iraqi cities.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:44:12 PM EDT
So what are non-main battle tanks called??
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:47:17 PM EDT
Fire hazards.

G
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:52:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
Ask yourself which units led the charge all the way to Baghdad and entered the city on "Rumble Runs" ?

G



Thunder Runs?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:52:17 PM EDT
we did joint exercises in yakima, WA with british and gurkha (spelling?)inantry using our M1A1 tanks, and A-10s. we were at a halt with the infantry while the a-10s did their target runs and a brit comes up to our tank to talk a bit, and I say "those a-10s are pretty impressive huh?" and he goes; "yeah, but when he's done with his run he goes back to base, you guys are out here with us all night."
he makes a good point.
besides the main gun, we have a 50 cal machine gun, and two 7.62 machine guns. and we are armor plated. kind of like a moveable bunker. very useful even when there are no tanks around to kill.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:52:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
So what are non-main battle tanks called??



Self propelled artillery?

Anti-personel tanks?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:56:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
Ask yourself which units led the charge all the way to Baghdad and entered the city on "Rumble Runs" ?

G



Thunder Runs?



Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:57:05 PM EDT
The main reason there are tanks is so that the little boys with big toys can break things with ease.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:03:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 8:13:34 PM EDT by Da_Bunny]
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.

It would have been interesting.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:31:30 PM EDT
Our tank doctrine has changed in past years. In World War 2 the job of the tank was to support our infantry as a mobile bunker with a big gun, and to kill enemy infantry units. They were able to cover lots of ground quickly while giving the enemy infantry a real hard time and being hard to kill. We actually had "Tank Destroyer" units with vehicles that were similar to tanks but different. Their job was to take out other tanks as a matter of routine, while our tanks were supposed to concentrate on supporting infantry - which sometimes required duking it out with other tanks.

Our doctrine has since changed due to the Cold War and the threat of the Warsaw Pact. Our tanks were tasked with killing enemy tanks while also supporting infantry. Our APC's and IFV's were supposed to somewhat take the place of the tanks in providing direct infantry support.

In OIF we used our tanks to kill other tanks, but now that we have shifted from invasion to occupation, we are again using out tanks as mobile bunkers with lots of very nasty guns. I spoke at length with a Marine Major who told me that the biggest ground asset his Marines had in Falujah and other places was the M1A1 tank. It was the only piece of equipment the enemy didn't have an answer to. They have very limited means to kill them, and not much will really survive many hits from the 120mm.

Of course, I'm sure I will be corrected in some of what I've said - Vito or Manic_Moran will probably be along shortly to give me an informational bitch slap.


-K
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:34:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 8:49:54 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]
No bitchslap there, Special K, you're pretty much on.


Originally Posted By _disconnector_:
The main duty of a MBT is to kill other MBT's.



I strongly disagree with that theory. That's the description of a tank destroyer. These days, they usually are armed with missiles such as LAV-AT, M901, BRDM-2AT or Jaguar, but guns are making a comeback with CV-9020, 2S25 and Centauro.

I may be something of a heretic in the American community, but I subscribe to the British and Russian theory that a tank's primary function remains that which caused the tank's creation in the first place: Infantry support.

Yes, this means that it should be capable of supporting infantry by destroying other tanks which might threaten the infantry. But it should also be capable of dealing with other problems that infantry are having, not least enemy infantry strongpoints. The US Army is only now figuring out in Iraq that which it had forgotten, or at best sidelined, in the Fulda Gap outlook. Abrams was designed to deal with the massed Soviet armoured assault, and to destroy tanks and PCs, allowing the troops, artillery and IFVs to deal with attacking infantry. By chosing the German smoothbore and its then HEAT/Sabot-only armament, it allowed it to excel in that role, at the cost of the rest. The lack of a explosive round was considered of little import. Nowadays the Army is again realising "Hey, these things might have a role in supporting infantry by killing enemy crunchies.". Hence the recent interest in cannister rounds. A tank battalion marauding around in an enemy's rear would cause a lot more trouble if it had a job other than just destroying MBTs.

The MBT is a concept which really came through in the post-war years. Prior to that, you had light tanks, medium tanks and heavy (breakthrough) tanks. Light tanks were used for recon/cavalry roles, the medium tanks did general duties, and the heavies were the hammers that were used to deal/take punishment. As the engineering capability increased, it became feasible to have a tank which was both mobile and hard/hitting. The requirement for the separate categories of tank basically vanished. Tanks like M41 Walker Bulldog and M-103 went the way of dinosaurs. Conqueror had a service life of about six years. A few light tanks, such as the British CVR(T)s and Russian PT-76 still remain for recon roles, but are expected to avoid combat.

In recent time, though, non-traditional tanks have started re-appearing, such as the Infantry Assault Tank in the shape of the BMP-T. They are designed to combine serious infantry support firepower on a chassis which is as tough as a tank's. i.e. it can provide more firepower than, say, a Bradley in places that Bradley's might not be able to survive. The vehicle below, for example, has two 30mm automatic grenade launchers, twin 30mm cannon, 7.62mm MG and four missiles which usually have thermobaric warheads or if necessary an anti-tank warhead. In confined terrain such as cities, this thing becomes an infantryman's best friend, not a tank with the long, single cannon and limited elevation. BTR-T looks similar, but sacrifices firepower for troop space. It's more of a super-heavy APC of the Achzarit vein, but with more guns.



NTM
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:41:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 8:42:43 PM EDT by LonePathfinder]
Where is Manic Moran our resident tank platoon leader and combat vet when you need him?
Edit speaking of the devil^


Tanks started out to break the trench warfare of WWI. The allies were the only ones to really embrace the idea. The british developed large land ships to support infantry attacks. The french had the light FT series of tanks that functioned as cavalry (in academic sense only, they were quite slow themselves).

Thus in the inter-war years the roles for the mechanized units(not necessarily tanks) became:
1 Infantry support: provide close firepower support for infantry attacks
2 Cavalry roles: your classic missions of recon, economy of force, all requiring high mobility
3 Anti-tank: to kill enemy tanks who are engaged in #1 or #2

The US theory was that tanks support the infantry, and punch a whole in the defenses so mechanized and motorized units can punch through to the rear. Basically tanks do mission number 1. Hence why the Grant and Sherman all were armed with the low velocity 75mm gun.

The Cavalry mission was done by armored car and light tanks plus motorized infantry. Speed was important above all else. Think Stuarts, half tracks etc. Number 2 mission.

A new branch of the Army (thanks general mcnair) called the Tank Destroyers were meant to destory enemy tanks. This is number 3 mission. Tank Destroyers were basically tanks that ditched ~50% or more of tank armor and had high velocity anti-tank guns.

In reality this never quite worked out. US Tank Destroyers were vulnerable to german tanks (OMG they shoot back!) and later in the war many german tanks were not nearly as vulnerable to US AT guns. Add to that the Tank Destroyers were not that great at supporting infantry. They had no turret roof, no coaxial or bow machine guns and were vulernable to man portable AT weapons. US tanks ended up as much being the exploiting forces as the break through forces, as well as taking up the slack of fighting enemy tanks. Shermans got more armor, bigger AT guns (76mm, Firefly) and became early bastardizations of a Main Battle Tank (A do it all tank) The Cavalry kind of sort of worked out how it was supposed to.

Flash foreward to today the difference between a US infantry division and a US Armor division is nonexsistant. IIRC A Infantry Division has 5 Mech Inf BN and 4 Armor BN plus support arms and a Armor Division has 4 Mech Inf BN and 5 Armor BN. This will change somewhat as we introduce Stryker units, which are basically modern motorized infantry. There will only be ~6 brigades of strikers tho.

So today MBT's are there to kill other tanks, support the infantry (mainly by keeping enemy tanks from killing them) and to take and hold ground (supported by infantry). They support each other.

A side note, the Bradley and Abrams were designed to do all of these missions in WWIII in the Fulda Gap. Hords of commie tanks would be coming, we would be vastly out numbered, hence why the Abrams was designed to be as leathal and best protected as possible, and why mechanized infantry units have some serious AT firepower in the form of missiles. Hardly any other country's have such heavy ATGM's on their mech inf.

Much of my knowledge gleaned as being a lurker on tank-net.org
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:47:16 PM EDT

The french had the light FT series of tanks that functioned as cavalry


I don't know if the FT-17s were designed as cavalry tanks, per se. I believe they had the same breakthrough role as the larger tanks, but went about it in a different way. The idea as stated at the time was to have a swarm of mosquitos coming at the Germans, not just one or two elephants.

The British did have a dedicated cavalry tank, in the form of the Whippet. It lacked any of the large guns of the rhomboid tanks, and got up to a whopping.. oh... 8mph or so.


Much of my knowledge gleaned as being a lurker on tank-net.org


What's your handle there?

NTM
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:51:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

The french had the light FT series of tanks that functioned as cavalry


I don't know if the FT-17s were designed as cavalry tanks, per se. I believe they had the same breakthrough role as the larger tanks, but went about it in a different way. The idea as stated at the time was to have a swarm of mosquitos coming at the Germans, not just one or two elephants.

The British did have a dedicated cavalry tank, in the form of the Whippet. It lacked any of the large guns of the rhomboid tanks, and got up to a whopping.. oh... 8mph or so.


Much of my knowledge gleaned as being a lurker on tank-net.org


What's your handle there?

NTM



I just read to pass the time, I never really got around to registering. Maybe I will.

Agreed on the FTs, but in the sense of a cavalry (trot maybe) charge vice, as you say a couple of war elefants. Lots of slow small MG armed tanks. I completely forgot about the whipet. My memory must have been affected by my beverages I consumed this evening

PS you need to make you journal from Iraq into a book. You'd be rich. Move next door to littlefield...
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:58:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 9:00:02 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]
Go on, register. Then you can post in the 'Who am I' thread in the FFZ!

For whatever reason, I just can't seem to convert it to a 'readable' story. Not least, I have to go to work every day, which eats up time. I really need to work on it more though, instead of the half-hearted attempt I've made so far. I already live next to Littlefield's, I'm going there on Sat actually. JROTC crowd showing up, I'll pass on some words of wisdom.

NTM
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:58:43 PM EDT
Shock

If you are any sort of person that knows about the attack, you know, shock
has impact.

Guns carry shock that missles don't.

The Americans got into the German lesson of building tank-killers late.

We designed a tank that is good for killing tanks, and, not much else.

You'd think a common sense roll of defending close action with infantry would've been considered, but, no. Why bother with that?

If you'd ever tried to stand for 10 seconds behind an M1, you'd know.

New (old) munitions are coming back. Gunshields will be next.

The M-1 is a cold war tank fighting an old war. All it takes to make the tank relevant is to devise new munitions.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:07:53 PM EDT
"Tanks are there to kill other tanks"

So that means if my army deploys a bunch of these toys

Then the enemy must follow suit!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:10:22 PM EDT
Main Battle Tank

'on average the M1 outranged the Soviet T72 by over 1,000 meters.'

Oh - and they are being used to blow shit up in Iraq too.

In the hisory of man, no civilization has been better at breaking things and killing people than Americans!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:14:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
"Tanks are there to kill other tanks"

So that means if my army deploys a bunch of these toys
www.planet.nl/upload_mm/d/6/5/1987074492_1999998326_roboraptor_337x253.jpg
Then the enemy must follow suit!



That's not the question Pete.

The issue is that the US predictably lags a decade or so behind in weapons systems.

When we get it right, it's about the time the threat diminishes, and,a new threat arises.

Now...High tech? We got that goin on
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:39:40 PM EDT
The M1 is good at knocking down street light poles too.

I'll never forget rolling into an Iraqi military base during Desert storm behind the M1's (1stAD). We provided Engineer Support to the Armor. The M1 in front of us veered up to the sidewalk and started mowing down lamp posts like they were saplings.

later we spotted some K5 Chevy Blazers all parked in a row, apparently unscathed from the air assault. No sooner did I convince our squad leader to go over there and have a little demolition derby when some ASS HOLE in an M1 drove up and car crushed the entire row! Oh, son of a bitch was I pissed.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:08:39 AM EDT
The M1 was for killing Soviet Tanks in the Fulda gap. WAYYYYYYY back when there was a border in Germany.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:15:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyquik: Ok, shooting other tanks. Then what happens in a war where one side has no tanks? I guess its like OIF? The tank-having side gets to run hell-for-leather towards the capital?
There's a word for that: INTIMIDATION. Tanks can shoot at snipers and bunkered up infantry with impunity. And there's nothing like having American tanks rolling through you hometown to tell you that your cause is lost.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:18:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JB69:
Blowin stuff ALL the fuck up



ding, ding, ding - we have a winner!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:19:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyquik:
What do they shoot that 120mm gun at?


how about "anything they fucking want!"?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:29:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Shooting other tanks.

Kind of a waste though. The USSR/Warsaw pact would have swamped any resistance if they decided to take Europe.


Heh. Maybe...maybe not. They were as afraid of facing us as we were of them.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:30:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:38:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:38:19 AM EDT by Kharn]

Originally Posted By markl32:
later we spotted some K5 Chevy Blazers all parked in a row, apparently unscathed from the air assault. No sooner did I convince our squad leader to go over there and have a little demolition derby when some ASS HOLE in an M1 drove up and car crushed the entire row! Oh, son of a bitch was I pissed.

How many seconds of convincing did that require?

Kharn
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:54:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CB1:
The M1 was for killing Soviet Tanks in the Fulda gap. WAYYYYYYY back when there was a border in Germany.



Yep. That's what it was designed for. Shoot the first round at them beyond their range to shoot back. Pop smoke and haul ass backwards to the next firing position, etc., hopefully slowing them down enough for us to get control of the air space and get assets into Europe. Pretty much a 50/50 proposition (some say less).
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:59:47 AM EDT
tag for home
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:09:54 AM EDT
Blowing shit up.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:25:14 AM EDT
They are targets for a 12YO goat herder who jumps out from behind a bush and hits it in the rear with an RPG.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:35:06 AM EDT
What are MBTs for?
To protect Bradleys from other tanks.
Bradleys are there to protect GIs from explosives and MG fire,and to kill enemy troops with gunfire.
MBTs are basically acting as the tank destroyers for breakthrough and neutralization of the tank threats,and Bradleys play the role that Shermans and half tracks once did- exploitation and killing troops.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top