1/30/2024 0 Comments Modern us tank doctrine![]() ![]() Tank graveyard in Kharkov, photo by Urbanghostmediaīut the arms and armor race continued and tanks (especially western ones) were becoming heavier and bulkier, encountering the same logistical issues their predecessors and crews encountered in the late 1940s. ![]() But while a tank was always a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield, the development of anti-tank missiles and modern ammunition, which made old steel armor largely obsolete, cast shadows of doubt on the usefulness of the tank concept itself, especially in the 90s and 2000s with the disappearance of the threat of massive tank battles to the west after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was simply to wage war against whatever forces it encountered, which – at least during the Second World War – were mostly infantry, artillery (including anti-tank guns) and softer targets such as trucks, APCs and – of course – enemy tanks, should they be encountered. The primary task of a tank was never to fight other tanks only. Massive tank versus tank battles have been quite rare and – unless we count the complete and one-sided destruction of Iraqi armored forces by overwhelmingly superior American armor – practically disappeared after the 1973 Yom Kippur War (and the lesser-known Indo-Pakistani conflicts). This notion, largely supported by war movies and actual events in the Second World War, might appear realistic at first glance, but real battle is very different. When it comes to armored warfare, especially tank and armored vehicle tactics, many people, perhaps most, imagine massive clashes of steel monsters on the battlefield with hundreds of war machines fighting against each other. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |