ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by ugly

Tanks and Guns? Well we dont even make our own propellant any more let alone the guns to fire it!

Good then maybe that's a way of telling us we're not fighting anymore. Can you imagine how we would get on dependant on others if the shit really did hit the fan again? I'm all for the swiss way-let others fight and we'll take the money

Forgive me if my logic tree is distorted or inaccurate here but surely:-

1/ Tanks are optimised for engaging fast-moving, hardened targets with direct fire. Most notably other tanks.
2/ The horrendous smoothbore can opener used by most NATO nations to defeat other tanks (and armoured vehicles) has massively compromised the gun's ability to engage other targets.
3/ The need for extremely heavy armour and a massive powerplant to make them mobile makes tanks logistically problematic.
4/ Technologyhas moved on a great deal in the last two decades and there are now a multitude of methods of engaging and defeating heavy armour.

Basically, does it really make sense to send a tank to hunt another tank? The best way of egnaging a target is surely with platforms and weapons the target cannot engage itself? Rather than engaging it with a platform and weapon it is itself specifically designed to engage and defeat? Tank-on-tank the winner will usually be the one with the best (most sophisticated/reliable/expensive) fire-control and aiming equipment. But thats a brute force approach and thus increasingly expensive I'd have thought. Isn't the argument for tanks along the lines of "Since the 1930s the best and usually only way to fight tanks is with other tanks"? Isn't it getting a bit obselete as an argument?

Originally Posted by Trans-sane

Forgive me if my logic tree is distorted or inaccurate here but surely:-

1/ Tanks are optimised for engaging fast-moving, hardened targets with direct fire. Most notably other tanks.
2/ The horrendous smoothbore can opener used by most NATO nations to defeat other tanks (and armoured vehicles) has massively compromised the gun's ability to engage other targets.
3/ The need for extremely heavy armour and a massive powerplant to make them mobile makes tanks logistically problematic.
4/ Technologyhas moved on a great deal in the last two decades and there are now a multitude of methods of engaging and defeating heavy armour.

Basically, does it really make sense to send a tank to hunt another tank? The best way of egnaging a target is surely with platforms and weapons the target cannot engage itself? Rather than engaging it with a platform and weapon it is itself specifically designed to engage and defeat? Tank-on-tank the winner will usually be the one with the best (most sophisticated/reliable/expensive) fire-control and aiming equipment. But thats a brute force approach and thus increasingly expensive I'd have thought. Isn't the argument for tanks along the lines of "Since the 1930s the best and usually only way to fight tanks is with other tanks"? Isn't it getting a bit obselete as an argument?

Uh, no, especially on your claims regarding ammunition natures. There are now a full range of very useful rounds denied to us.

Both us and the Yanks found tanks marvellously versatile and effective in urban fighting.

"…Tanks are agile and well protected, have a first class direct fire precision strike capability (minimising collateral damage), can be utilised as a surveillance asset (in overwatch and route protection for clearance and logistic patrols), have permanence and, once deployed, are cheaper and quicker into action than both aviation and air. They also serve as a deterrent; highly effective in both the prevention of engagements as well as demonstrating a proven ability to bring about the early cessation of hostilities. Critically, and fundamental to effective deployment, our tanks must continue to be maintained and our crews properly trained if they are to be used in the future.…"

Director Royal Armoured Corps, Brigadier Simon Levy;

Originally Posted by jagman

They can be canister launched from pretty much any vehicle. It doesn't need a smoothbore gun to launch it.

And if your unarmoured vehicle goes up against proper armour, hilarity ensures.

The Bradley was supposed to be able to fight off MBT's with its AT launchers and not need heavy metal escort - well, that WAS the plan.

But of course, you are wilfully ignoring the utility of long range precision direct and indirect fire from a well armoured and highly mobile platform

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

Uh, no, especially on your claims regarding ammunition natures. There are now a full range of very useful rounds denied to us.

Both us and the Yanks found tanks marvellously versatile and effective in urban fighting.

"…Tanks are agile and well protected, have a first class direct fire precision strike capability (minimising collateral damage), can be utilised as a surveillance asset (in overwatch and route protection for clearance and logistic patrols), have permanence and, once deployed, are cheaper and quicker into action than both aviation and air. They also serve as a deterrent; highly effective in both the prevention of engagements as well as demonstrating a proven ability to bring about the early cessation of hostilities. Critically, and fundamental to effective deployment, our tanks must continue to be maintained and our crews properly trained if they are to be used in the future.…"

Director Royal Armoured Corps, Brigadier Simon Levy;

Which ammunition would that be? Not being an expert I can probably only name long rod, HEAT, HESH and canister. Plus the quote is from an RAC bloke and thus will be biassed towards tanks. I am increasingly of the opinion that no one reaches high rank in the UKPLC armed forces (and RAF) without being distinctly partisan towards their own lot and partisan against every one else...

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

And if your unarmoured vehicle goes up against proper armour, hilarity ensures.

The Bradley was supposed to be able to fight off MBT's with its AT launchers and not need heavy metal escort - well, that WAS the plan.

But of course, you are wilfully ignoring the utility of long range precision direct and indirect fire from a well armoured and highly mobile platform

Who said un-armoured? Not me.
I said any vehicle (that means it can be attached to a tank without the need for a smoothbore gun)

Originally Posted by jagman

Who said un-armoured? Not me.
I said any vehicle (that means it can be attached to a tank without the need for a smoothbore gun)

You really are missing the point in your fanatical nationalism, aren't you?
If L30 is such a wondergat, why was the army so anxious to regun with the Rheinmettal smoothbore?

Originally Posted by Trans-sane

Which ammunition would that be? Not being an expert I can probably only name long rod, HEAT, HESH and canister. Plus the quote is from an RAC bloke and thus will be biassed towards tanks. I am increasingly of the opinion that no one reaches high rank in the UKPLC armed forces (and RAF) without being distinctly partisan towards their own lot and partisan against every one else...

Hmmmmm, obviously years of extensive tank usage in urban warfare in the Middle east countries assorted and Iraq passed you by.....

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

If L30 is such a wondergat, why was the army so anxious to regun with the Rheinmettal smoothbore?

And look how many other nations are equipped with it. The 105mm, L7 was a world beating and globally respected gun. The L30 is not.