The Follies of Armored Warfare

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
Your ideas about minimizing casualties are based on common sense as well as human nation JEB Davis. In the short term it makes sense. However, studying historical battles reveals a trend only the best military tacticians can recognize without being told. This is the strategy behind warfare. Almost all the major wars of the 20th century were won using massed infantry attacks, sometimes employing cavalry as well for optimal effectiveness.

For example, General Giap defeated both the French and the USA in Vietnam using human wave attacks supported by intense mortar fire. China prevented North Korea from being saved by the Americans and only a U.N. peace treaty stopped the rampaging hordes of Chinese, who had neither tanks nor air support, from taking all of Korea into the communist camp. As I have suggested before, please study your military history from reputable sources before making statements like this; not only did the Chinese have tanks, but so did the North Koreans, as anyone from Task Force Smith can attest to. And both had air support; why do you think the US called the northwest section of Korea "MiG Alley?

The point of this is, the high casualties enjoyed during those wars not only made for a more interesting war, it also ended the war earlier and with less casualties than a beat around the bush, 'casualty minimizing' strategy would have achieved. The USA and Russia both now cannot handle casualties and their wars have suffered accordingly as we saw in both Vietnam for America and in Afganistan the Soviets were crushed by cavalry and infantry only. Modern tactics and weapons were defeated by simple, WW1 weapons and tactics. This is not only a simplistic statement, ignoring the greater political and social aspects that contributed to these defeats, but is also a grossly incorrect one. What WWI weapons were the VC and North Vietnamese using? Oh, right...the AK47 assault rifle. What WWI tactics were used by them? Yeah...fire and manuever.

As for needing a huge population base to provide for large infantry attacks, that is a major misunderstanding. The Soviet Union outnumbered the Afgans by many times and still lost to their simplicity. America also outnumbered Vietnam by many times in population, yet lost due to lack of grit and commitment, as well as they relied on modern weapons and tactics to their detriment.

Haig was before his time in foreseeing the effectiveness of a massed infantry charge along with arty and cavalry. Had Haig not been a commander, Germany would likely have taken over France in WW1.

[JVega]

I for one would like to say that the days of the tank are coming to an end. Infantry has always been the most powerful tool of warfare, and remains the most important part of the army today; just like it has been for thousands of years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there anti-tank guns for infantry out today that have a longer range than most tanks? Missile stuff.

The way I see it now, is that the two most powerful parts of any army today is the airforce and the infantry. The airforce obilerates and the infantry mops up. Don't get me wrong though. Tanks are without a doubt powerful machines of war, but I do believe they're overrated. They're too easy to destroy by the infantry, and the best I can tell, tanks are best at fighting other tanks, rather than infantry and whatever.

This is just my point of view though. Nothing near a professional opinion.

[JediMessiah]

the meeasure taken to develop anti-tank weaponry only speaks to their validity.


and to tbt...

the tanks of haigs time crawled at 2-5 mph. i think he would gladly of traded in his horse for a metal version that went faster, longer, didnt get ornery, could take a bullet or 2, and be repaired if it broke a leg.

modern mechanized forces have this, plus the abilty to project their firepower further and more effectively

-jedi

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Warrior
You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.

Agreed. And the real question is how to share the resources we have. Currently food could be shared to everyone and it would be enough. It's a question of will, not a question of resources. And as long as we are that 10% that own and use 90% of everything on this earth, we have nothing to complain about resource limits. We and our sefisness are the real problems here, not the amount of resources.

It is not a question of human population but a question of human (our) selfisness.

[Warrior]

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

ORIGINAL: Warrior
You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.

Agreed. And the real question is how to share the resources we have. Currently food could be shared to everyone and it would be enough. It's a question of will, not a question of resources. And as long as we are that 10% that own and use 90% of everything on this earth, we have nothing to complain about resource limits. We and our sefisness are the real problems here, not the amount of resources.

It is not a question of human population but a question of human (our) selfisness.

We, the 10% that consumes 90% of the resources, are also the ones who crank out 90% of what the worlds needs and uses. To call that selfish is another politically-correct but erroneous world-view. Before we start beating our breasts and feeling guilty about the resources we use, let's look at how much of EVERYTHING we produce... and where the world would have been without that production. As far as enough food for everyone, let's point the finger at the governments who, for political reasons and to retain their power, keep the supplies from getting to their people, or haven't built the infrastructure necessary to get the supplies distributed because their corrupt rulers are too busy stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

In case you were referring specifically to the United States: Americans are not selfish, and never have been. I challenge you to show me any other country that gives as much, officially from our government and unoffically by private citizens, as America.

And here's a final question for you: I own a nice house, drive a decent car, have plenty of food and conveniences, I give to my favorite charities, and pay my taxes. I have worked very hard for all I have and spend my hard-earned dollars on what I feel is important. My neighbor is a lazy bum who won't work, has no legitimate reason to qualify for welfare from the government, and always whines about not having anything. Should I consider myself selfish because I don't buy him a house, car, and groceries?

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Warrior

We, the 10% that consumes 90% of the resources, are also the ones who crank out 90% of what the worlds needs and uses. To call that selfish is another politically-correct but erroneous world-view. Before we start beating our breasts and feeling guilty about the resources we use, let's look at how much of EVERYTHING we produce... and where the world would have been without that production. As far as enough food for everyone, let's point the finger at the governments who, for political reasons and to retain their power, keep the supplies from getting to their people, or haven't built the infrastructure necessary to get the supplies distributed because their corrupt rulers are too busy stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

I partly agree that. But when talking about world's resources as a whole, the western civilizations have always been very eager to use not only their own but also all the others' resources as well. Africa is one quite large example. I'm talking about something called 'collective responsibility'. And that is not ment to take away personal responsibility but to largen the view.

In case you were referring specifically to the United States: Americans are not selfish, and never have been. I challenge you to show me any other country that gives as much, officially from our government and unoffically by private citizens, as America.

I was referring to western civilization as a whole, including US, but not specifically US.

And here's a final question for you: I own a nice house, drive a decent car, have plenty of food and conveniences, I give to my favorite charities, and pay my taxes. I have worked very hard for all I have and spend my hard-earned dollars on what I feel is important. My neighbor is a lazy bum who won't work, has no legitimate reason to qualify for welfare from the government, and always whines about not having anything. Should I consider myself selfish because I don't buy him a house, car, and groceries?

Comparing to most of people, your neighbour is still quite rich. What I meaned were the people who really don't have anything no matter how hard they'd work etc. and they still die for hunger or diseases that could have been vaccinated away for 1€ or 1$ per person.

[azraelck]

The US contributes some 80% of the world's aid. Further more, Both Korea and Vietnam; considered US wars were actually UN operations. It's just that when push comes to shove; only the US and a few allies have the testicals to actually put out forces to support those resoultions. Look how Saddam played with the UN. Resolution after resoultion passed; and still the inspectors were held back, thrown out, harassed, and everything else. It took a more conservative government on the US' part; but finally we dealt with it. Whats worse, the UN refused to take part in it, even though it was backing their ineffective resolutions. That was going on all through the 90's, throughout Clinton's two terms. And even he initiated a bombing campaign; though everything went back to status quo afterwards. He didn't want to fullscale war then. So take you America-sucks attitude and bury it. You have what you have because Americans are too generous, and they've stepped up and given their lives and industry for others.

[KG Erwin]

Careful, guys. Once you stray into political discussions, that usually means the thread will be locked down. [:-]

[Korpraali V]

Gunny: True. Have to try to keep that out. But this one is too delicious not to be commented:

ORIGINAL: azraelck
but finally we dealt with it.

And now there's no problem in Iraq?

[azraelck]

Far less than there was; and far less than what's being reported. No more rape houses, no more being killed because you looked at Saddam the wrong way, no more being forced to wear a mustache... Currently, the majority of the US actions involve moving out of the cities and into military bases, and turning over things to the Iraqi army and security forces. At least, so says the US soldiers I've spoken to on the matter. But hey, they don't know as much reporters who's entire careers center around an abject hatred of republicans; to the point that they fabricate documents and completely reword statements in order to discredit them After all, they're just soldiers who are or were in Iraq. Surely the allmighty MEDIA would know more about whats actually happening on the ground.

[KG Erwin]

I know a young Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Like any good Marine, he doesn't question the reasons, he just does his duty. Thankfully, he came out of it unhurt.

While we civilians may argue over the political manueverings, I admire and respect the fighting men and women.

A good soldier is apolitical. As long as the orders are lawful, then he/she must obey them.

[PimpYourAFV]

ORIGINAL: Warrior

ORIGINAL: forgorin

Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said...

You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.

Warrior, to understand why our planet is doomed to self-destruction at our current population growth rate, have a look at the differences in populations of countries from WW1 era and now. The population has doubled since 1918 and this is the same for just about all the other countries in the world, some even more.

Here is a factsheet to verify this... http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/japanc.htm

Populations are expending geometrically. Einstein said compound interest is the most powerful force on earth. He should have added population growth with it. At this current rate, our planet may be destroyed within a century. Add to this environmental destruction which is only getting worse, ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect and there is little chance the world can survive all this stress.

The answer to this is war. Hardcore war.

World War 1 style war is optimal for this. 'What kind of intriguing new plan does the chump from Tokyo have for us now?' you may wonder. World War 1 was optimal in 2 ways. First, it enjoys the highest level of battlefield casualties while leaving civilian centres undisturbed and peaceful. People can still live their lives as they like and read the newspapers to enjoy the daily war reports. The army must enlist both male and female to be effective in this plan. The fantastic casualty rate on the battlefield would ensure our planet's survival.

Second, the great war was environmentally friendly. Because the excellent trench warfare system is so stagnant, only a narrow strip of about 6 miles wide is ravaged by artillery and churned into a muddy mess. Such a tiny area of damage is admiral compared to WW2 when cities and countryside alike were both torn apart making life miserable for everyone. In addition, WW1 used only a tiny portion of the natural resources burned up in WW2, Vietnam, Iraq etc. All it needs is rifles, uniforms and artillery with a few canteens and shovels added in. Tank armies wasting millions of tons of metal and precious alloys are not needed.

[KG Erwin]

Ok, TBT, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by identifying you with the Samurai mentality . THAT would be honorable and understandable.

However, your current line of thought loses me. Get a grip, man.

[264rifle]

Hopefully back to topic:

Tanks (or their purpose) have sometimes been described as Providing Mobility and protection to the gun and crew that they carry.
The are not magic nor do they perform miracles.

They do provide a way to get a large caliber cannon into position to direct fire on the opponent without the crew or tow vehicle for a towed gun get wiped out by small arms fire or shell fragments. They provide for the rapid shift in firing positions for the guns mounted on them.
Tanks are not a modern version of the armoured knight or heavy cavalry. Using them to "CHARGE" an enemy defensive position is to waste them. THey are to be used to break through a weak point in the line then use their movement to bring their guns to bear from an unexpected direction.

There have always been exceptions to the basic tactics. Sometimes they worked, like Matilda's overrunning Italian 47mm guns. Sometimes they didn't, like any British tank unit trying to overrun dug in 88's.

German Blitzkrieg was based on tank units NOT OVERRUNNING strong positions but bypassing them to hit unprepared rear areas (Artillery positions, supply dumps, headquarters, bivouac areas or rail supply points) that would make the strong points unable to hold out for very long.

The answer to the 88's was not a bigger, heavier tank but better recon to find the 88's and then artillery or air strikes to supprese them or having found them have the Artillery shoot up an area of the line several miles away, have the tanks go through there and bypass the 88's, then shoot them up as the 88's try to retreat.


On the scale of the game with the small maps many of these operations do not show up well. And in real life 88's that were deployed as anti-tank guns had a VERY limited AA capability.

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai

The answer to this is war. Hardcore war.

Same question: And you would be happy to die among the first ones?

[KG Erwin]

Oh, man, I can't resist:

All together now -- "BANZAI!"

John Wayne voice: " Pilgrim, 'round here we don't go for no sushi -- I like my Japanese cooked well-done"

(My apologies to both Tokyo Boy and Afrika Korps)

[Einar Fridgeirs]

ORIGINAL: 264rifle

Hopefully back to topic:

Tanks (or their purpose) have sometimes been described as Providing Mobility and protection to the gun and crew that they carry.
The are not magic nor do they perform miracles.

They do provide a way to get a large caliber cannon into position to direct fire on the opponent without the crew or tow vehicle for a towed gun get wiped out by small arms fire or shell fragments. They provide for the rapid shift in firing positions for the guns mounted on them.
Tanks are not a modern version of the armoured knight or heavy cavalry. Using them to "CHARGE" an enemy defensive position is to waste them. THey are to be used to break through a weak point in the line then use their movement to bring their guns to bear from an unexpected direction.

There have always been exceptions to the basic tactics. Sometimes they worked, like Matilda's overrunning Italian 47mm guns. Sometimes they didn't, like any British tank unit trying to overrun dug in 88's.

German Blitzkrieg was based on tank units NOT OVERRUNNING strong positions but bypassing them to hit unprepared rear areas (Artillery positions, supply dumps, headquarters, bivouac areas or rail supply points) that would make the strong points unable to hold out for very long.

The answer to the 88's was not a bigger, heavier tank but better recon to find the 88's and then artillery or air strikes to supprese them or having found them have the Artillery shoot up an area of the line several miles away, have the tanks go through there and bypass the 88's, then shoot them up as the 88's try to retreat.


On the scale of the game with the small maps many of these operations do not show up well. And in real life 88's that were deployed as anti-tank guns had a VERY limited AA capability.

Awesome. By far the most intelligent answer on this thread. If TokyoBoy wasn´t a gimmick poster, he´d do well to take this message to heart.

As for me, my Shermans rock! But so does my armoured infantry, AT guns and arty....combined arms is the name of the game.

[Afrika Korps]

Extra Crispy...

[KG Erwin]

Yeah, I think Tokyo Boy IS engaging in some "eraborate reg-purring".

We DO need to lighten up here once in awhile. As a matter of fact, I'm engaging in a little lightening-up right now.

[Wild Bill]

Well, I'm lit up! How about you?

WB