Tanks for the Memory

Tech Central Station ^ | 05/13/2003 | Ralph Kinney Bennett

[Dead Dog]

That would be an amazing sight. A dozen might be doable. that would be 75 hour flight time to anywhere (very secure landing area) in the world. Not Great, but it sure beats the weeks or months we're used to.

[Seydlitz]

The article is okay, but the author makes it painfully clear that he does not understand armoured warfare doctrine. Rather, he sounds like a technophile with a very basic understanding of military affairs.

The tank is going to be around a lot longer than any of the Pentagon's Jedi Knights would like to admit. The tank may be slow in getting to the theater, but so is most everything required to enable an armed force to operate effectively in any high-intensity conflict. It is the logistical infrastructure required for modern war that is slowest of all to arrive and deploy, and I cannot help but wonder if Rummy & Co. fully appreciate that fact. It would be a shame if we encountered a foe tougher than Saddam's Iraqis and had to learn the hard way.

[FirstFlaBn]

btw...The Third Armor Division was not part of Patton's Third Army.

Thank you. Don't you hate to read "deep" preachy analysis from someone who can't even be bothered to learn the fundamentals?

On another note, critical thinking is dead. This writer announces the demise of heavy armor because of the availability of light shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons. What he doesn't explain is how the proposed lighter replacement systems won't suffer from the same vulnerability.

The only way to reconcile this is to assume we'll return to the Sherman method - make too many of them for the enemy to kill them all and accept the human losses. Unlikely in this era of casualty minimization as a priority.

[farmfriend]

he sounds like a technophile with a very basic understanding of military affairs.

That would fit the web site.

Other military stuff on the site.

About the author.

[RightWhale]

Impression of the point of the article -

Because the Iraqi armor was devastated, the Age of Heavy Armor is over. AHA!

[SAMWolf]

It was still an interesting read. Even with the errors.

[NFOShekky]

"It must be noted that many of these losses can be recouped. American tank crews are the best in the world. They are made up, after all, of young American men - many of whom have spent weekends, wrench in hand, under the hood of a hot rod or pickup truck. U.S. experience in the modern tank era (World War II to the present) indicates that almost two thirds of combat-damaged tanks can be repaired and put back on the line. Excellent retrieval equipment, skilled repair units and frequently resourceful crews also mean that 95 percent of non-combat breakdowns will be repaired, usually in less than a week. (However, it must be noted that a week delay in combat may be six days too long.)"

This says it all!! With 22 years in military aviation, I've seen these young kids (hell, I was one myself once:-) working under the worst conditions and with no rest, and under the tutelage of skilled NCOs they can fix ANYTHING!

[rmlew]

M-4 Sherman= Ronson Lighter
"It always lights on the first hit!"

[rmlew]

The T-34 was miserable in terms of comfort except where it counted: survivability. I would care much more about surviving a hit from a high velocity 75 (or god-forbind an 88mm round). Both the T-34/76 and the T-34/85 could take on any German tank one-on-one, except the Tiger, and live. The same could not be said for the Sherman, even with the British 17 pound gun.

[rmlew]

AS much as I despise the name sake of this tank, I would argue that the IS-2 (Stalin-2) was the best heavy tank of the war.
http://www.wargaming.net/tanks/MODELS/js2.htm

120mm frontal sloped frontal armor
122mm high velocity cannon.
max speed 37km/h
hieght of 2.73 meters.
It ate Tigers for lunch. King Tigers were their equals, but the Soviet design was more reliable adn produced in larger numbers.

Of course tactics count. In the 1967 War, the Israelis used upgraded Shermans against IS-3's and won.

[SauronOfMordor]

On another note, critical thinking is dead. This writer announces the demise of heavy armor because of the availability of light shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons. What he doesn't explain is how the proposed lighter replacement systems won't suffer from the same vulnerability.

Given the lethality of tank countermeasures, and a US reluctance to absorb heavy casualties, expect to see more robotic flying/crawling platforms. They could be controlled from well out of range of enemy fire, and could be mass-produced in quantities that make losses tolerable

Just as the battleship gave way to the carrier and its airplanes, the tank may give way to an armored command vehicle controlling swarms of remotely-piloted weapons platforms

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks for the ping, Sam. Good article.

The Sherman was a "Cadillac" compared to Soviet tank designs.

Just how bad are their tanks?

[SAMWolf]

They had good tanks just not big on crew comfort.

[SAMWolf]

Yep "Tommy Cookers"

[SAMWolf]

A lot had to do with the tactics used. The Germans were masters. They were fighting with "Divisions" that had a tank strenght of 35 tanks sometimes.