The nonsense of best tank in world

I always have to laugh when "Armchair Generals" look at ITEM 1 and then ITEM 2, and decide which is the best simply on what they think is most important.

Meanwhile completely ignoring everything else that actually matters.

Maintenance, quantity, logistics, strategy and tactics, and everything else that actually affects how equipment performs.

Things like that can make a superior piece of equipment inferior, and an inferior piece of equipment superior (consider my earlier comparison between German and US tanks in WWII).

You can not simply take a single thing and make a decision as if that item exists in a bubble.

 

Yeah the idea that tanks are obsolete just because AT missiles exist is absurd. Modern maneuver tactics have ways to mitigate ATGM effectiveness.

 

On the modern battlefield tanks are sitting ducks, trust me.
For example earlier today I bought 5 modern battle tanks in 5 separate Armed Assault III online games and lost them all one by one to a combination AT missiles fired by infantry, choppers and ground attack jets, usually at long ranges out to 3kms or more and i rarely even saw the shooter, heck even APC's were getting in on the act, peppering my metal babies with 20/30mm cannon fire that shot out the optics!
The average life expectancy of the tanks was about 10 minutes (sniffle)
Below- a typical infantryman in Armed Assault III with AT launcher, he's almost guaranteed to see a tank before the tank sees him, and there are LOT like him..

 

Ok. Well there's your problem. You think ARMA III is a realistic simulator of combat.

 

I drum it into my computer wargame recruits that- "The enemy can't kill you if he can't see you, so don't run around like Rambo".
I also tell them- "Don't lock your AT missile onto the enemy armour or he'll get a warning beep and dive for cover or pop a smokescreen, (and you'll also have given away your position), so fire un-locked and let the missile ride the crosshairs to the target and he won't know what hit him."..

 

Haha i knew somebody would say that!
Fact is, highly-realistic combat simulators like Arma III have been used by the military for years..

 

One side has 1,000 state-of-the-art tanks. The other side has 10 ICBMs with 10 megaton warheads. Who wins?

If the USA and Russia get into a war, it isn't going to be decided by tank battles.

I seem to recall Putin saying if Turkey mass invaded Syria he would respond with tactical nukes. Tank versus nuke. Which one wins?

 

Ehhh, you are aware that there are big differences between games and real life, right?

It is still just a simulator, and not real life.

Then there is always some idiot that throws around the issue of nukes.

But please, find us that quote about Russia launching nukes over Syria.

 

Correckly whole list.

 

Right, when playing empire-building games like 'Civilisation' it's a great feeling to finally get my hands on nukes and instantly win the game by nuking the hell out of the enemy..
To his credit, Truman ended WW2 like that, but whether most of today's leaders have got the stomach for it remains to be seen.
As you said, Putin claims he'll use smaller "tactical" nukes against Turkey if he has to and I daresay he will. My reading of the man is that he secretly despises weak-willed politicians and would enjoy showing them how things should be done..

 

At which point WWIII will have started.

Turkey is a key member of NATO, and is protected by the joint nuclear assets of NATO. Nuking Turkey (or the UK, France, US, Germany, etc) is the same as nuking all members of NATO.

And I for one do not think that NATO will do nothing in response.

 

I certainly do not want to start a discussion about the impact of the US air forces, or the significance of airpower, etc. The fact is that air is very important, of course, and the fact is that since the Korean War, the US has had not a single opponent to fight, who was only able to have a half-way equivalent air force ... neither the technology, nor by the pure mass of planes and Air Defense systems.

I hope you and everyone else is clear that these doctrines about which you speak here, are no US invention and development … are not even a bit of a US invention!
They originated in British and then by the Germans, especially under General Guderian. The so-called Blitzkrieg 1940 is an exemplary example for these doctrines of the combined weapon carriers around the tank.
Also it was Guderian who made the saying of “Infantry without tanks are death meat … as tanks without infantry are too!” This tells all … extended to other things like Air Defense etc. When Air Power became during WW-2 a threat, the capacity to defend tanks and infantry against enemy planes became same way important too. Infantry and tanks without Air Defense are sitting ducks told another General later, this time a British with name Montgomery.

You are correct that there were no real new Main Battle tank developments during the last 20 years until the Russian T-14 Armata and all are improvements of an older model. But this is at least no problem, if the base is still up to date what they are.
In case of AFV’s it is nearly the same with one exception: The German Puma who replaces the older Marder (marten).

Looking on the German Leopard 2 it gives a very good example of this improving a base again and again.
I will not bore people here about the development history … choose google if you want to know … but when cold war ended, the German Army had about 2,300 Leopard 2A4 and A3 in inventory.
Germany reduced this number to today 328 tanks of A6, A6M and A7 version and nearly ¾ of NATO and other countries are now using the Leopard 2 back from the reduction of number in Germany.
In Germany the tank was in collaboration with other Leopard 2 users, particularly Netherlands, overhauled and nearly re-developed and this process went on. The turret changed not only in view, but as the complete tank in matter from armor protection. This followed by a longer and much more better 120mm barrel with A6 and then it was found out, that the Leopard can become a victim to bigger IDE’s and mines and so the protection against was heavy improved with A6M. With A7 a bunch of further changes and improvements was done again.
Also are further specifications available as a special Urban combat version and the Leopard 2 become the platform for several other vehicles as a bridge layer, mine sweeper, recovery tank and engineer tank.
So in conclusion: Even old base (40 years!), still up to date tank and much wanted in the world to have in Forces as MBT! The number of users is still long and could be much longer, but due to strict weapon export controls in Germany it isn’t. For example wants Saudi Arabia the Leopard 2 A6M and A7 like mad … but because the Royal Family regime there is for not only few in Germany not better as the Assad regime in Syria, they can forget it to get Leopard 2 in moment.

 

This was still told in 1973 when Israel lost many tanks to USSR AT missile system called "Sagger" and was reality? not even 5 years later the Sagger was only a "tank call waiting device" which cause only scratches in paint!
it is an ongoing process here ... something which knocks out a tank easy today, can be tomorrow only scrap due to improvements at tanks. To destroy an M1A1/A2, a Leopard 2 A6/A7 or a Challenger 2 from the front is until now impossible ... even impossible by a same tank!
The only real threat to modern tanks where until now EVERY TANK IN WORLD is total and deadly vulnerable against are hits from above on the roof of turret and hull and here several weapon systems are now in use.

But the myth of these so deadly AT systems is at least discovered to be a myth if someone looks closer on issues.
In my OP I gave example of the Iraqi M1A1 being killed where it was of course not told that Iraqi M1A1 do not have the special armor of the US M1A1 tanks ...
Or with the latest 3 killed Turkish Leopard 2 tanks ...killed by a Russian build RPG / AT weapon in ME… woops! Telling was suddenly how superior these Russian weapons are, making tanks so obsolete and what sort of rubbish the Leopard 2 is. But untold fact is in reality:

a) The A4 version used by Turkey is outdated and even the difference to the A5 version is huge … not to say about difference to current A6 and A7 version of Leopard 2 tank!
b) That the Turkish tanks in general are not up to date is since 2 years well-known and this includes the Leopard 2 of them. Even in 2014 it was clear that Turkish losses of tanks and AFV’s in the Syrian conflict will be high!
c) The Turkish Army used the Leopard 2A4 as stationary fortress in a hole with sand wall around. This is making any tank to be a sitting duck for AT armed infantry with some skill!
d) the tank was hit in his back and here all tanks are weak at least … particularly if being used as stationary fortress.

 

As I wrote in previous posts ... to have Air Superiority and / or a deadly strong Air Defense to protect ground troops is of course major important.
But the problem is that since Korea War the US never met in war any enemy having only a spark of threat in Air not to have the Air superiority. Let the US ever have to fight an enemy who is strong enough to counter US Air Power and the picture on the ground will look otherwise too ... when AH-64, A-10 and so on are then hunted by enemies too and not being well protected against any Air threat.

It was for example interesting how the US ... sorry to say ... ignorance and arrogance rated the Iraqi air force and their mostly Russian equipment as scrap and being so inferior. Due and backed by what?

Facts were and are:
a) The total number of Iraqi Air Force was lesser and not even half of what strength of US Air National Guard was!
b) Most jets were old and of an age where the US main fighter was the F-4 Phantom and no F-14, 15, 16 and 18 were existing or being in first deliveries to USAF etc. ... or in comparison to tanks: These Iraqi planes were in majority of age like the T-55 tank and had to fight the M1A1's of the Air!

But even these few Mig-29 jets of Iraq were rated as scrap and inferior after 1991 ... and the bad awaking came some years later when same sort of Mig-29 over Kosovo made the F-15 and F-16 with their so proud AIM-120 AMRAAM ridiculous ...
(A Serbian Mig-29 was shot 4 times with AIM 120 and due to skills of the Serbian pilot, no one hit and even luck was given that the Serbian pilot did not kill an F-15 Strike Eagle in reverse

 

It will not be so easy…
The tank column can do 100km in 4 hours, you will have to spread your defenses thin, do not expect the enemy to give you the luxury of knowing where he will hit. This means that your AT defenses will be spread. For instance Saddam was quite positive that US will approach Bagdad from North, till the moment US took the airport.
The enemy is going to scout the column path. With UAVs, with helicopters, with deep recon. All uncovered defenses will be shelled from long distance. Many possible AT emplacements will be shelled, just to make sure.
Arma 3 is a good game, but it gives you wrong understanding of FLIR capabilities, the picture is way to good and no difference between tank and Javelin FLIR picture. In reality a tank FLIR will have the upper hand in optics, picture quality and long range resolution.
Arma lacks all sorts of smoke. Javelin can overcome ordinary smoke but helpless against metallized smoke screen. All wire guided AT missiles should not expect duck hunt against a proper assault.
Arma 3 Abrams or T72 dies from a single AT missile hit. In reality T72 – 64 needs 6 RPG7, T80 – needs 8 hits. BTR requires 2. (Statistics from Chechen war). No idea on Abrams statistics, should be the same.
And frontal armor is inpenetratable, do not forget that you are not engaging a tank head on, this is very bad for health.
Yeah, there is the fly by and dive attack modes, but do not forget about Shtora, Arena, Trophy, and sand bags . You do not have those in Arma 3

Last 20 year statistics on all tanks except for Merkava, show a 1 killed tanker for 1 destroyed tank. (Merkava is less lucky, their story is different).
If you will spend a Javelin on my tank, this means that you are not spending it on a truck filled with infantry. 1 dead versus 20? So the presence of Javelin on the battlefield, does not really change much in my internal structure. More smoke grenades, more observers, more recon, but rest is basically the same.

 

Trump has already hinted that NATO needs re-organising, and spoke of NATO countries that don't pull their weight, so there's no guarantee he'll send troops to die for a cause he doesn't believe in, and good for him..

 

AT missilemen have pretty good optics too, furthermore a missileman is virtually invisible in cover because he's such a tiny target, whereas you can spot tanks miles away.
Arma 3 has got smoke and it can block AT optics. for example I was out tankhunting in Arma 3 an hour ago and spotted a Varsuk on a hill, my first missile hit him frontally and damaged him, so he popped smoke grenades and a crewman jumped out to do a repair. As I could no longer see the tank through the smoke I had to sit twiddling my thumbs for a couple of minutes until it'd dissipated, then I fired my second missile and blew him up..

 

Unless the game of ARMA you are playing has full representation of MTOE's, logistics, artillery support, unit tactics, etc, then it isn't a realistic combat simulator.

Fun fact: in real combat, every infantryman doesn't carry a missile launcher.

 

It should be noted too that the effectiveness of the Sagger against the Israelis has been consistently overhyped. If you look at the statistics, the Egyptian fired something like 1,000 Saggers for every tank kill they achieved.

 

The added fun of wargaming is that there are plenty of forums for analysing after-action reports..
For example here's a 'Ukraine Storm' play-by-email tournament I organised for the 'Combat Mission:Black Sea' game under my fighting name 'Poor Old Spike'-
http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=68109

And here are assorted screenshots from various CMBS battles-
http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=67599

A couple of CMBS example screenshots-

 

That smoke doesn't exist in real life. And no ATGM that is manpacked IRL has optics that are effective miles away.

Seriously, stop thinking that you understand modern tank/anti-tank warfare because you play a video game.

 

Haha many of the wargamers I play against are serving military personnel because they know how valuable wargames are for learning tactics..
PS- I forgot to mention my wargaming credentials under my fighting name 'PoorOldSpike', here are mine, now let's see yours..-

 

They still are not representative of reality. You could also play chess to learn tactics but that won't help you when you are out in command of an artillery battery.

 

1- The old myth says we have to be "military geniuses" to command troops, but that's pure bull because all we need is simple good old fashioned commonsense..

2- Below is a typical command HQ, everybody is watching their computer screens and ordering their troops to "Go here, go there, kill, don't kill", just like a computer game..


And the same applies to smaller command HQ's and HQ vehicles out in the field, everything is done on computer screens there too..-

 

Are you really (*)(*)(*)(*)ing serious?

Pray tell, how many years did you serve? Because I served for a decade, mostly in tactical and strategic headquarters units, and I can tell you your assertion that they are like video games is the most ignorant bull(*)(*)(*)(*) I've heard in a while.