What are tanks use for?

Here, there is good news footage of the issues the Israili tanks faced when up agaist these ATGM's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

Their fairly mobile. Obviously a single soldier isnt going to be able to use it and carry it around, it takes a small team. But they are portable enough to deploy reasonablly quickly and have a pretty massive range of well over a mile. I believe their are also more portable shoulder launched versions. They did some serious damage to the Israili army, which wasnt expecting such heavy resistance and were as a result never able to advance deep into Hezbollah territory.

They have to be moved on foot- or they lose all effectiveness. Which, automatically, renders them "incredibly immobile" the damage inflicted resulted from hidden ambushes the IDF had trouble spotting.

I dont know concreatly what kind of numbers they achieved, but I know for a fact they managed to kill the crew of these tanks on several occasions, and seriously damage the tanks on many others.

I know exactly the number of deaths sustained by armoured crews- and i'm not going to share it. let's say it's far lower than you would think (take into account that less than a 100 israelis died- and that most of those were infantrymen. the "failure" mentality stemms from the Israeli public's tendency to hysteria in anything related to army casualties. In Israel- a soldier's life is much more valued than a civilian one- A thing which I consider a national mental illness).

grape_of_wrath

I know the amount of deaths sustained by armored crews was low, thats not the point. The point is that the amount of tanks actually hit in the operation, was astonishingly high, at nearly 50. But what was largely, 70's era technology. The point is to disable the tank, not neccesarily to kill the crew. And by and large they were very succesfull in that regard, as Israel's ground force was never able to go deep into Hezbollah territory.

The fact that they can be moved in the first place just by several individuals means they are mobile, your point doesnt make a lot of sense.

Also, im not sure where your getting your numbers, as Israeli casualties were in fact larger than 100.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

Here, there is good news footage of the issues the Israili tanks faced when up agaist these ATGM's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws

grape_of_wrath

Its news footage

I know the amount of deaths sustained by armored crews was low, thats not the point. The point is that the amount of tanks actually hit in the operation, was astonishingly high, at nearly 50. But what was largely, 70's era technology. The point is to disable the tank, not neccesarily to kill the crew. And by and large they were very succesfull in that regard, as Israel's ground force was never able to go deep into Hezbollah territory.

The reason not being able to penetrate deep into hezbollah territory had more to do with a political desk not knowing what they wanted to do or accomplish,then caving in to international pressure,than actual hezbollah military successes.

They slowed down advance, considerably and unexpectedly- but Israel didn't exactly know where it wanted to reach to begin with. That's what happens when, spineless,civilian political figures are nose-led to a war by what they perceive as public outcry and "revenge".

The fact that they can be moved in the first place just by several individuals means they are mobile, your point doesnt make a lot of sense.

I'm not talking about the actual capability of moving them. They are technically mobile- but so is a couch. We're discussing levels of mobility. AT crews move slower than regular on-foot infantrymen. In comparison to an armoured force- they're practically static. Also, and this is a big also, once engaged with a tank force- they have to stay put or they will be spotted and killed.

Also, im not sure where your getting your numbers, as Israeli casualties were in fact larger than 100.

Overall, yes. Soldiers- a little less than a 100.cobrax55

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"][QUOTE="cobrax55"]

Here, there is good news footage of the issues the Israili tanks faced when up agaist these ATGM's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws

Its news footage

Actually, I realized there were 119 dead including the initial cross-border attack, by hezbollah,and the rocket attack that hit an Israeli reserve force in preparations.

And those definitely count. So you were right.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

I know the amount of deaths sustained by armored crews was low, thats not the point. The point is that the amount of tanks actually hit in the operation, was astonishingly high, at nearly 50. But what was largely, 70's era technology. The point is to disable the tank, not neccesarily to kill the crew. And by and large they were very succesfull in that regard, as Israel's ground force was never able to go deep into Hezbollah territory.

The reason not being able to penetrate deep into hezbollah territory had more to do with a political desk not knowing what they wanted to do or accomplish,then caving in to international pressure,than actual hezbollah military successes.

They slowed down advance, considerably and unexpectedly- but Israel didn't exactly know where it wanted to reach to begin with. That's what happens when, spineless,civilian political figures are nose-led to a war by what they perceive as public outcry and "revenge".

The fact that they can be moved in the first place just by several individuals means they are mobile, your point doesnt make a lot of sense.

I'm not talking about the actual capability of moving them. They are technically mobile- but so is a couch. We're discussing levels of mobility. AT crews move slower than regular on-foot infantrymen. In comparison to an armoured force- they're practically static. Also, and this is a big also, once engaged with a tank force- they have to stay put or they will be spotted and killed.

Also, im not sure where your getting your numbers, as Israeli casualties were in fact larger than 100.

Overall, yes. Soldiers- a little less than a 100.grape_of_wrath

Bullsh%t It was not political...when have you ever seen politics slow down the IDF? They bombed cities in lebanon none stop despite public reaction from every country. The loss was very much a military one, they failed to advance into Hezbollah territory largely because of the ATGM's, which hit an unprecidented amount of tanks. Israel's own invistagation into the matter found the same exact thing.

And yes, ATGM's are mobile, thats the point. Your logic makes absolutly no sense, They can be taken apart and moved relativly quickly makes them mobile. I dont know where you get the idea that their substantially slower then infanty. Their carried by a team of people for a reason. Their no less mobile then heavy machine guns.

They can engage in targets from several KM's away, they do not have to remain stationary one the target is engaged.

And the offical Military losses for the war was 121. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers.

And the offical Military losses for the war was 121.

cobrax55

So how many tanks were destroyed, and how many were deployed?

Bullsh%t It was not political...when have you ever seen politics slow down the IDF?

All the f***ing time.

They bombed cities in lebanon none stop despite public reaction from every country.

The international public opinion, obviously, matters much less than Israeli public opinion who was in a swirl of "Let's get them" sentiments. "let's get them", sadly, doesn't translate well into a military plan. Airstrikes are a prime example of the ill considerations at work- Initially, they wanted to destroy hezbollah through air superiority and w/o a land campaign. It took a while until someone realized that planes wooshing over zyre and beirut aren't going to defeat anyone.

The loss was very much a military one, they failed to advance into Hezbollah territory largely because of the ATGM's, which hit an unprecidented amount of tanks. Israel's own invistagationinto the matter found the same exact thing.

Given time and a thought out plan- they would have cleaved through Lebanon, AT capabilities or not. The committee formed to investigate the events found many deficiencies- above all a profound political failure.

And yes, ATGM's are mobile, thats the point. Your logic makes absolutly no sense, They can be taken apart and moved relativly quickly makes them mobile. I dont know where you get the idea that their substantially slower then infanty. Their carried by a team of people for a reason. Their no less mobile then heavy machine guns.

Right, That's exactly right. heavy machine guns enjoy very low mobility. I did not say they are substantially slower than regular infantrymen.

They can engage in targets from several KM's away, they do not have to remain stationary one the target is engaged.

So can tanks. they do have to remain stationary- the operator has to keep his sights on the target until impact, in any matter a missile takes about 20 seconds to hit from about 4km away.

deploying and packing up takes considerable amount of time, aswell. In practicality- they can't move during a fight with an armoured force, period. their whole advantage lies in staying hidden.

And the officalMilitary losses for the war was 121. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers.

See my previous post.

cobrax55

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

And the offical Military losses for the war was 121.

Palantas

So how many tanks were destroyed, and how many were deployed?

50 were hit out of of 300-400 deployed, there were also additional APC's that took losses. Those are very serious losses for a modern army in a Guerilla conflict. Either way, those ATGM's are considered to be the primary reason for the poor performece of Israel's ground force.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

Bullsh%t It was not political...when have you ever seen politics slow down the IDF?

All the f***ing time.

They bombed cities in lebanon none stop despite public reaction from every country.

The international public opinion, obviously, matters much less than Israeli public opinion who was in a swirl of "Let's get them" sentiments. "let's get them", sadly, doesn't translate well into a military plan. Airstrikesare a prime example of the ill considerations at work- Initially, they wanted to destroy hezbollah through air superiority and w/o a land campaign. It took a while until someone realized that planes wooshing over zyre and beirut aren't going to defeat anyone.

The loss was very much a military one, they failed to advance into Hezbollah territory largely because of the ATGM's, which hit an unprecidented amount of tanks. Israel's own invistagationinto the matter found the same exact thing.

Given time and a thought out plan- they would have cleaved through Lebanon, AT capabilities or not. The committee formed to investigate the events found many deficiencies- above all a profoundpolitical failure.

And yes, ATGM's are mobile, thats the point. Your logic makes absolutly no sense, They can be taken apart and moved relativly quickly makes them mobile. I dont know where you get the idea that their substantially slower then infanty. Their carried by a team of people for a reason. Their no less mobile then heavy machine guns.

Right, That's exactly right. heavy machine guns enjoy very low mobility. I did not say they are substantially slower than regularinfantrymen.

They can engage in targets from several KM's away, they do not have to remain stationary one the target is engaged.

So can tanks. they do have to remain stationary- the operator has to keep his sights on the target until impact, in any matter a missile takes about 20 seconds to hit from about 4km away.

deploying and packing up takes considerable amount of time, aswell. In practicallity- they can't move during a fight with an armoured force, period. their whole advantage lies in staying hidden.

And the officalMilitary losses for the war was 121. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers.

See my previous post.

grape_of_wrath

Every single failed military operation is always blamed on politics. But the reality is that had the military operation been a success in the first place there would have been no need to blame the politicians in the first place. Policts have never held back the Israeli army, not once. You can blame them all you want but it doesnt change reality. Israel's own investigation into the matter found the IDF to blame for the failed military operation.

You can argue about the effectivness of ATGM's all you want, but the reality remains: They were rather effective agaist the Very Modern IDF.

In fact, the conflict was viewed a such a failure from a military perspective that it led to a redeisgn of the entire Israeli military strategy, which had previously relied on a Blitzkrieg like heavily tank based assault, and has since then been readjusted to be more infantry focused.

Every single failed military operation is always blamed on politics. But the reality is that had the military operation been a success in the first place there would have been no need to blame the politicians in the first place.

There were a lot of factors to blame. The most colossal one- was that there wasn't a thought out operation to begin with.

Policts have never held back the Israeli army, not once. You can blame them all you want but it doesnt change reality.

The IDF is a giant wuss that is nose-dragged by two prominent figures- the prime minister and the minister of defense. Speaking w/o any coherent knowledge about Israeli politics, doesn't do you credit.

Israel's own investigation into the matter found the IDF to blame for the failed military operation.

I had the misfortune of reading large segments of that report. There were so many deficiencies- it was longer than every legal verdict I have ever read, combined. Everyone was at fault.

The IDF was very much responsible for parts of the "failure". If not for the mere fact- that it is the main responsible factor in Israel for military professionalism, and it is supposed to lead the politicians by the nose, and not the other way around.

You can argue about the effectivness of ATGM's all you want, but the reality remains: They were rather effective agaist the Very Modern IDF.

Never said they weren't-But they are lacking in many departments, and they definitely can't replace the tank.

In fact, the conflict was viewed a such a failure from a military perspective that it led to a redeisgn of the entire Israeli military strategy, which had previously relied on a Blitzkrieg like heavily tank based assault, and has since then been readjusted to be more infantry focused.

It did the exact opposite. but i'm not about to violate military censorship regulations for the sake of an argument on a gaming forum.

cobrax55

I was having a good time participating in this argument, please stop building strawmen- it's ruining it.

50 were hit out of of 300-400 deployed, there were also additional APC's that took losses. Those are very serious losses for a modern army in a Guerilla conflict. Either way, those ATGM's are considered to be the primary reason for the poor performece of Israel's ground force.

cobrax55

Source? In any case, I'm not going to agree that the systems you describe are either widespread or effective against modern tanks, as the US Army has used tanks extensively in recent times without heavy losses.

Tanks are used to show appreciation....... typically followed by "You're Welcome."

Sorry

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

50 were hit out of of 300-400 deployed, there were also additional APC's that took losses. Those are very serious losses for a modern army in a Guerilla conflict. Either way, those ATGM's are considered to be the primary reason for the poor performece of Israel's ground force.

Source? In any case, I'm not going to agree that the systems you describe are either widespread or effective against modern tanks, as the US Army has used tanks extensively in recent times without heavy losses.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

50 were hit out of of 300-400 deployed, there were also additional APC's that took losses. Those are very serious losses for a modern army in a Guerilla conflict. Either way, those ATGM's are considered to be the primary reason for the poor performece of Israel's ground force.

Palantas

Source? In any case, I'm not going to agree that the systems you describe are either widespread or effective against modern tanks, as the US Army has used tanks extensively in recent times without heavy losses.

The source is the Israeli investigation into the matter, its a matter of public recard now, you can look it up pretty much anywhere, its even on wikipedia now (and sourced)

The system is very widespread, in the sense that the Russians built tons of them and sold them on mass. The US army has never been up agaist ATGM's so thats not relevent at all, their not exacly as widespread as RPG's.

Obviously, the number of tanks that were catastrophically destroyed couldn't be 50, if the total casualties were 120. Not unless the tanks had two a half man crews, anyway.

The system is very widespread, in the sense that the Russians built tons of them and sold them on mass. The US army has never been up agaist ATGM's so thats not relevent at all, their not exacly as widespread as RPG's.

cobrax55

They're not too widespread if the US Army has never encountered them. "Not exactly as widespread as RPGs" isa understatment, as we've been up against those in the thousands.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

Every single failed military operation is always blamed on politics. But the reality is that had the military operation been a success in the first place there would have been no need to blame the politicians in the first place.

There were a lot of factors to blame. The most colossal one- was that there wasn't a thought out operation to begin with.

Policts have never held back the Israeli army, not once. You can blame them all you want but it doesnt change reality.

The IDF is a giant wuss that is nose-dragged by two prominent figures- the prime minister and the minister of defense. Speaking w/o any coherent knowledge about Israeli politics, doesn't do you credit.

Israel's own investigation into the matter found the IDF to blame for the failed military operation.

I had the misfortune of reading large segments of that report. There were so many deficiencies- it was longer than every legal verdict I have ever read, combined. Everyone was at fault.

The IDF was very much responsible for parts of the "failure". If not for the mere fact- that it is the main responsible factor in Israel for military professionalism, and it is supposed to lead the politicians by the nose, and not the other way around.

You can argue about the effectivness of ATGM's all you want, but the reality remains: They were rather effective agaist the Very Modern IDF.

Never said they weren't-But they are lacking in many departments, and they definitely can't replace the tank.

In fact, the conflict was viewed a such a failure from a military perspective that it led to a redeisgn of the entire Israeli military strategy, which had previously relied on a Blitzkrieg like heavily tank based assault, and has since then been readjusted to be more infantry focused.

It did the exact opposite. but i'm not about to violate military censorship regulations for the sake of an argument on a gaming forum.

grape_of_wrath

I was having a good time participating in this argument, please stop building strawmen- it's ruining it.

You can argue Deficinies in the report all you want, but it was written by people far more experienced in this subject area than you or I. What you personally think about it is irrelevent.

You blame the loss on plannning...thats not a political issue. The problem was that the Israeli invasion was spearheaded by tanks, as has been the strategy of the IDF forever. Hezbollah had weapons designed to fight off modern tanks, and were obviously very succesfull in that regard.

ATGM's obviously arent going to make tanks obselete any time soon, but they are highly effective, theres a reason that pretty much every russian vehical at this point (ironiclly including tanks themselves) can fire ATGM's. They havent been used often, but every time they have, they have been highly succesfull. They did more damage in the Lebanon conflict then the all the damage suffered in the entirety of the Iraq andAfghanistan war combined.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

The system is very widespread, in the sense that the Russians built tons of them and sold them on mass. The US army has never been up agaist ATGM's so thats not relevent at all, their not exacly as widespread as RPG's.

Palantas

They're not too widespread if the US Army has never encountered them. "Not exactly as widespread as RPGs" isa understatment, as we've been up against those in the thousands.

The US hasnt fought even a remotly modern Army in ages. They are widespread in the sense that most reasonably advanced armies are going to have them.

Iran, Syria, North Korea all have them.

To put it into perspective, Hezbollah was estimated at having 1000's at the start of the war, and their not even a national army.

Obviously, the number of tanks that were catastrophically destroyed couldn't be 50, if the total casualties were 120. Not unless the tanks had two a half man crews, anyway.

Palantas

50 was the number of tanks hit, of these (as I just found out) apparently 8 could still be repaired on the field while the rest had to be removed for repairs.

Hit those not imply that its crew was killed, it implies the tank had to be repaired.

Okay fine, but that still doesn't make them widespread if only modern armies have them.

Okay fine, but that still doesn't make them widespread if only modern armies have them.

Palantas

Its not only modern Armies, its just about everyone.

They have been around since the 60's. Pretty much everyone is going to have them. The two wars we are in right now arent being fought agaist armies at all.

You can argue Deficinies in the report all you want, but it was written by people far more experienced in this subject area than you or I. What you personally think about it is irrelevent.

When they wrote the report- they interviewed people like me. What I think is very relevant. I'm an Israeli tank commander and an Israeli law student- In regards to military-state-legal aspects of Israel i'm a f***ing authority.

You blame the loss on plannning...thats not a political issue.

Sadly, in Israel- it is. But you make a very good point- and AGAIN, the IDF was very much culpable.

The problem was that the Israeli invasion was spearheaded by tanks, as has been the strategy of the IDF forever. Hezbollah had weapons designed to fight off modern tanks, and were obviously very succesfull in that regard.

The invasion wasn't spearheaded by tanks and Israel neglected it's armoured capabilities since the 80's, wading in the muck of occupation in the W.bank, with tankers spending more time as an infantry occupation force than training with tanks. [Hence- the occupation is ruining Israel both morally and militarily-a point besides the point].

Thankfully- I got to see major improvements in that department in my time.

ATGM's obviously arent going to make tanks obselete any time soon, but they are highly effective, theres a reason that pretty much every russian vehical at this point (ironiclly including tanks themselves) can fire ATGM's. They havent been used often, but every time they have, they have been highly succesfull. They did more damage in the Lebanon conflict then the all the damage suffered in the entirety of the Iraq andAfghanistan war combined.

Damage to what? The number of Israeli casualties in Lebanon are about the same as the number of american casualties in the conquest of Iraq, alone- which was a so-called resounding success. regarding anything else- agreed to a point.

cobrax55

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Obviously, the number of tanks that were catastrophically destroyed couldn't be 50, if the total casualties were 120. Not unless the tanks had two a half man crews, anyway.

50 was the number of tanks hit, of these (as I just found out) apparently 8 could still be repaired on the field while the rest had to be removed for repairs.

Hit those not imply that its crew was killed, it implies the tank had to be repaired.

Addendum: tanks have to be repaired constantly w/o taking damage and w/o being able to repaor it on the spot. If you can repair it "on the field"- the damage is 0.grape_of_wrath

Tanks are used to show appreciation....... typically followed by "You're Welcome."

Sorry

YellowOneKinobi

Tank you for your excellent explanation, however, you didn't answer how tanks is used on the battlefield.

I suggest to anyone who ahs interest in this particular topic to read this book;

A good part of it covers the very subject that the OT brought forth.

As of today, tanks are really only good for fighting other tanks and serving as a psychological weapon. The prevalence and cheapness of infantry-based anti-tank weapons (such as the TOW, the ever-present RPG-7, the AT-4 etc. etc.) is the major reason for this, although helicopter gunships (primarily the American AH-64 Apache and the Russian Mi-24 HIND) haven't helped things either. Many military analysts predict that tanks will vanish all together before 2050 rolls around.

As of today, tanks are really only good for fighting other tanks and serving as a psychological weapon. The prevalence and cheapness of infantry-based anti-tank weapons (such as the TOW, the ever-present RPG-7, the AT-4 etc. etc.) is the major reason for this, although helicopter gunships (primarily the American AH-64 Apache and the Russian Mi-24 HIND) haven't helped things either. Many military analysts predict that tanks will vanish all together before 2050 rolls around.

Verge_6

Tanks are used as get away vehicles in police chases.

Hit those not imply that its crew was killed, it implies the tank had to be repaired.

cobrax55

Yes, obviously. Nothing I said indicates I believe otherwise.

They are widespread in the sense that most reasonably advanced armies are going to have them.

cobrax55

Its not only modern Armies, its just about everyone.

cobrax55

Okay. I'm pretty sure we did fight against an army in the recent war. Actually, I'm positive of this, because I fought against them. Was this an issue for our armored forces in 2003? Not that I'm aware of, but perhaps you know something I don't.

They have been around since the 60's. Pretty much everyone is going to have them. The two wars we are in right now arent being fought agaist armies at all.

cobrax55

Then I'm still comfortable in telling someone they're not widespread, as A.) They're not being used against our forces, unlike a whole host of weapons that are, and B.) These weapons are not carried in great quantities by US infantry units.

Blowing things up.

Well gunships are good but I they aren't so good if there is anti-air around so a tank works well too, they are huge guns on treads covered with tons of armor that you need a rocket or two to destroy, a whole bunch of tanks could be devestating.

Infantry to hide behind.