It is currently Wed 22 May 2013 00:20

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun 2012 11:16 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 22:17
Posts: 5084
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
But a nation that has the means to own MBTs has the means (aerial, missile, artillery and others) to actually destroy them easily.

We never saw two "big" sides fighting with modern means. These are so destructive that it''s lucky really.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors
Image
My Youtube Channel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun 2012 11:18 
Offline
General

Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 00:00
Posts: 6523
DeuZerre wrote:
But a nation that has the means to own MBTs has the means (aerial and others) to actually destroy them easily.

If you want to win a war you still need to hold the ground. Which means that you need MBT to both defend and attack. Superiority of any arm of service or technology is a falacy which (sadly) "west" (read USA) falls for often.

As for land forces - there are plenty means to defend them agains air attacks, including CPGM AA, ECM systems, advanced camouflage and others.

_________________
Image
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun 2012 11:25 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 22:17
Posts: 5084
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
You don't really need them to hold and defend. That's the point of IFVs and the like.

Actually, I correct myself: It really depends on the terrain. Flat lands would mean that what you say is true.

Most european grounds would reduce greatly the point off MBTs.

They cost too much to be used in an open modern war: They'd blow up pretty easily to lighter things, and the winners of such a war would be the one with the biggest initial numbers of.... Anything not infantry really.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors
Image
My Youtube Channel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun 2012 11:29 
Offline
General

Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 00:00
Posts: 6523
DeuZerre wrote:
You don't really need them to hold and defend. That's the point of IFVs and the like.

Actually, I correct myself: It really depends on the terrain. Flat lands would mean that what you say is true.

Most european grounds would reduce greatly the point off MBTs.

They cost too much to be used in an open modern war: They'd blow up pretty easily to lighter things, and the winners of such a war would be the one with the biggest initial numbers of.... Anything not infantry really.

The issue here is that you only see the tactical level.

In Iraq tanks worked just as good, as did they work in 080808 war, not to mention the many Arab-Israel ones.

_________________
Image
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun 2012 11:47 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 22:17
Posts: 5084
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Again: Against outdated and badly trained ones. Not equal odds.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors
Image
My Youtube Channel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun 2012 11:49 
Offline
General

Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 00:00
Posts: 6523
DeuZerre wrote:
Again: Against outdated and badly trained ones. Not equal odds.

No, it showed that manuever is still a valid concept (I meant the first gulf war). In it rapid mechanized forces (with tanks), airborne units and so on are nessesary.

_________________
Image
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 29 Jun 2012 15:15 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 22:34
Posts: 2023
The first gulf war show something important.

If you want to impact a country you need MBT... and helos (i like those prisonner line captured by an helicopter)...

But if youwant to HOLD you need inf and government... and political intention to do so....

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 29 Jun 2012 15:19 
Offline
General

Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 00:00
Posts: 6523
diana olympos wrote:
The first gulf war show something important.

If you want to impact a country you need MBT... and helos (i like those prisonner line captured by an helicopter)...

But if youwant to HOLD you need inf and government... and political intention to do so....

Well not tanks strictly, but rather mechanized forces in general (including tank, IFV, self propeled arty, AA and so on).

Helicopters (artilery, other "deep fire means") are only a part of such combined arms force.

As for the security - you need police units and light infantry (+UAV and such systems).

In general it is a shame that late 80s/early 90s projects never were completed in USSR (obj 292 obj 477 and others)

_________________
Image
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 29 Jun 2012 15:31 
Offline
Brigadier
User avatar

Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:52
Posts: 3226
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Not much has changed since WWII(actually it's gotten even more important)...Rule number 1: Own the skies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 29 Jun 2012 15:38 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 20:56
Posts: 1949
We are talking here about tanks right?

I dunno about other countries but here I would be pissing on an expensive Leo / Abrams / T90 from the top of the cliff while they would be stuck and cursing in the gorge. :roll:


OpusTheFowl wrote:
Not much has changed since WWII(actually it's gotten even more important)...Rule number 1: Own the skies.

True. But even that doesn't help you on certain terrain. Sometimes you have to go the old fashioned way bashing skulls.

_________________
How to derail a thread with style:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group