Hi guys,
Things always change but some principles remain? I read several books about Vietnam, a war we didn't get into so no axe to grind. Am I right in understanding that tactically, when armour was used casualties were fewer in Vietnam? Even APCs like the M113, but tanks especially are hard for insurgent forces to deal with as they (like paratroopers at Arnhem) are lightly armed.
In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war though the sagger missiles at Suez stopped the Israeli's omnipotent tank forces dead - with new technology - the same forces that murdered the numerically superior tank forces on Golan, it was mainly when the Egyptians came out of defence they were chopped up, and that was a political more than military decision.
Is the tank really a strategic weapon rather than a tactical one? That was how Liddell Hart, Fuller, Rommel and Guderian to name a few - and the Russians - all saw it?
Archers, infantry with swords, shields and body armour, cavalry. There is always the need for balance on the battlefield - artillery/firepower , armour for protection, mobility in all circumstances. Plus now airmoblie and aircraft.
I agree with Oz, that armour is probably the first priority for my tank, but you also need enough tanks. Fifty Tiger2s in Normandy v how many thousand Shermans? Or numerically worse in the East. But ariel interdiction against fuel lorries or direct attack from the air - have you seen the photos of the Normandy tiger turned upside down by bombing - countered. Or the artillery on Elsenborn ridge stopping the attacks in the Northern Bulge dead and winning the battle in the first days.
You could spend enormous amounts of money that does it all, but complexity tends to cost - and may also have a payback in reliability and logistical tail needed to support it. I would argue that it also matters that you do put the industrial cost into the equation as cheapness and simplicity of manufacture have told in the past (t34, sherman).
The tank was invented to break the trench deadlock in WW1 but actually the improvement in artillery and developing the plan for attacking along different parts of the front - backed up by the industrial resources to make the guns and shells to fire - meant that the tank was still only a small factor in Germany's 1918 defeat, it was the writing on the wall, not the wall.
But this brings me to my main point - clarity of doctrine is needed as well as battlefield flexibility. WW2 was a war of attrition Germany had already lost by the beginning of 1943 as she only had until then to defeat her enemies before their superior resources told.
So what is it now? The Chieftan was the British attempt to put survivability into an early MBT - why? Armour was the most important factor but this was no 'Matilda' grunt support tank, designed against the doctrine of holding the Russian tank hordes for two weeks by killing tanks - until the convoys could reach Europe from the USA? (It was hopefully no 'ronson' either.)
With advancing technology, the German Leopard, M1 and even the British tanks now have excellent combination of firepower, mobility and armour (survivability). Dave, you will be the expert here. So what have we designed the tanks for now?
Which war are we supposed to fight - my point is we (civilians) don't know. But if it is unsure, then surely we should plan for the worst, as if it happens and we do have a war against a growing giant like India or China (and I hope it never comes to that) we will need not only capable tanks, but also a hell of a lot of them.
Think on this, the USA had about 50% or more of the world GDP in 1945, is it now around 20-25% ? - a huge RELATIVE decline. China is expected to overtake the US by 2050? If history tells us one thing, it is that major wars tend to kick off when there is a major change in economic power. The powers in being spend more of their GDP as a percentage to maintain their military and political power, weakening their own economy by developing things that you can't sell to the same degree, whist their potential opponents grow their economies. Imperial Britain at the end of the 19C, buying battleships cf Germany became more industrialised and richer. Eventually the new power wants the political clout that goes with their new status, but the old powers don't want that so spend on the military instead of civilian economies as they become overstretched in their continental or global empires - Rome, France, Britain, USSR all did this.
The only thing that seems to have stopped this cycle since WW2, and let's hope it still will, is MAD mutually assured destruction - the nuclear threat.
But that also explains the 'brushfire wars' as nobody can fight modern firepower in a convential war - really? Vietnam, Iraq/Iran, Hesbollah in the latest invasion of Lebanon?
If military force is the last option after failed diplomacy could we try diplomacy more - or have clearer goals for military force as means, not an end in itself?
So I ask again, what do we need tanks for, why do we need them? As a medium sized 'has been' power, but with arguably the best diplomatic service in the world historically, I'm not sure we Brits do need many tanks but as I still have no idea really why we are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia and the rest, I'm probably no one to ask......And therefore work on the basis that if our children are going to fight out there, then they should have some tank support - sorry Dave! In the current type of wars, 'Grunt support' is where it's at....
They may also need an armoured taxi but I agree that should not be you. Pz Grenadiers are armoured infantry. Not the same job as tanks at all. Is that still valid?
What do the politicians want and mean?
In the meantime, if the world really does go MAD with a major power in a few years - keep your hand on the button and mean that you will use it as the only hope that we never have to....
The world really might be mad.....
