Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vic Van Meter]

Modern MBTs (or even WW2 MBTs) are far from being unstoppable. Any proper artillery round or airbomb coming directly on top and it's the end, any good AT rocket (RPG-29 Vampir, Eryx, etc) and that's over, any good ATGM, and that's over...

I heard recently that the survival probability for infantry in a theorical symmetrical all raging battle these days is a lot higher than the one for a tank crew.

Not strictly true, some MBTs are pretty durable, Merkeva and Challenger 2 particularly. I recall stories of Challenger 2s shrugging off multiple AT rockets, but I'm not sure about a bombing from the air or heavy artillery.

A main battle tank is pretty much immune to anything ground forces can bring to bear except a HEAT round.  The problem with tank armor for most weapons is that it's all ablative, layers of ceramic armor and dense metal.  Especially in the glacis plate, it's essentially impenetrable.  For all intents and purposes, a main battle tank on the ground is not feasible to destroy.

For a while, the idea was just to blow a hole in it, but that hasn't been possible for a while.  Then, someone got the bright idea to launch a concussive weapon that would simply send a shockwave through the cabin and kill everyone in it.  That worked until they started layering in the ceramics.  Now, the only way to really effectively destroy a tank is to use a penetrator round to throw shrapnel around the inside.  That takes a pretty serious piece of ordinance.  In terms of Gen 3 main battle tanks, that's not going to be potable.

Tanks can be destroyed, but they do have ground superiority.  About the only things infantry or anyone else can hope to do to a main battle tank is to somehow break the treads (which is a LOT harder than it looks).

However, you might be right in the case of a symmetrical battle, Lyn, because being the big dog on the field means you're the first to get a bullet.  If we assumed two well-equipped nations went to blows with every conventional weapon they had, the infantry would probably survive better simply because there are usually more of them to target.  If you're in a tank on a modern battlefield, you're a target.  While no recent wars have seen a battle of that nature lately (right now, an M1 crew is essentially untouchable by the Taliban since the old explosives-under-the-tank-where-the-armor-is-weak doesn't work anymore) ground superiority doesn't mean total battlefield superiority.

It's actually some spectacularly old-fashioned aircraft that I'd say constitute the most frightening nightmare for a tank crew.  The A-10 Thunderbolt is a predatory reptile of an aircraft, a new evolution of a prehistoric design.  They just built a plane around the most massive gun they could make.  It'll put 30mm rounds completely through buildings and pulverize the foundation until it collapses.  I've also heard it can go through the armor on an M1 depending on the range.

[Lyn Farel]

Modern MBTs (or even WW2 MBTs) are far from being unstoppable. Any proper artillery round or airbomb coming directly on top and it's the end, any good AT rocket (RPG-29 Vampir, Eryx, etc) and that's over, any good ATGM, and that's over...

I heard recently that the survival probability for infantry in a theorical symmetrical all raging battle these days is a lot higher than the one for a tank crew.

Not strictly true, some MBTs are pretty durable, Merkeva and Challenger 2 particularly. I recall stories of Challenger 2s shrugging off multiple AT rockets, but I'm not sure about a bombing from the air or heavy artillery.

It depends of the AT rockets. The common light RPG-7 which is widely used everywhere like the old AK-47 will never dent any MBT, at least with a frontal shot. Some videos of the war in Syria can be seen on youtube where they shoot countless RPG-7 rounds on a stupidly old T-72 tank without even threatening it.

However, the Challenger 2 which is arguably one of the most armoured tank in the world following the british philosophy of "never enough armour, who cares for speed and the rest ?", got hurt pretty badly by a RPG-29 Vampir in the last war in Iraq. Full frontal shot, the rocket didnt even detonate, but it still pierced through.



For artillery or bombs, the main issue is that the top armour of a tank is not as thick as front or even side armour. Granted, you have to be damn lucky to hit a tank with artillery, but you don't necessarily have to. Back in WW2 artillery shell detonations were sufficient to flip even the biggest tanks upside down. Not the best weapon against those, granted, much like longbows were not against knights (tongue in cheek).

However you have iron bombs and especially cluster bombs that are specifically designed to kill armoured vehicles. Those are deadly. Or you can just use a CAS bomber like the A-10, Su-25, or whatever, loaded with AGMs either.

[Lyn Farel]

Modern MBTs (or even WW2 MBTs) are far from being unstoppable. Any proper artillery round or airbomb coming directly on top and it's the end, any good AT rocket (RPG-29 Vampir, Eryx, etc) and that's over, any good ATGM, and that's over...

I heard recently that the survival probability for infantry in a theorical symmetrical all raging battle these days is a lot higher than the one for a tank crew.

Not strictly true, some MBTs are pretty durable, Merkeva and Challenger 2 particularly. I recall stories of Challenger 2s shrugging off multiple AT rockets, but I'm not sure about a bombing from the air or heavy artillery.

A main battle tank is pretty much immune to anything ground forces can bring to bear except a HEAT round.  The problem with tank armor for most weapons is that it's all ablative, layers of ceramic armor and dense metal.  Especially in the glacis plate, it's essentially impenetrable.  For all intents and purposes, a main battle tank on the ground is not feasible to destroy.

For a while, the idea was just to blow a hole in it, but that hasn't been possible for a while.  Then, someone got the bright idea to launch a concussive weapon that would simply send a shockwave through the cabin and kill everyone in it.  That worked until they started layering in the ceramics.  Now, the only way to really effectively destroy a tank is to use a penetrator round to throw shrapnel around the inside.  That takes a pretty serious piece of ordinance.  In terms of Gen 3 main battle tanks, that's not going to be potable.

Tanks can be destroyed, but they do have ground superiority.  About the only things infantry or anyone else can hope to do to a main battle tank is to somehow break the treads (which is a LOT harder than it looks).

However, you might be right in the case of a symmetrical battle, Lyn, because being the big dog on the field means you're the first to get a bullet.  If we assumed two well-equipped nations went to blows with every conventional weapon they had, the infantry would probably survive better simply because there are usually more of them to target.  If you're in a tank on a modern battlefield, you're a target.  While no recent wars have seen a battle of that nature lately (right now, an M1 crew is essentially untouchable by the Taliban since the old explosives-under-the-tank-where-the-armor-is-weak doesn't work anymore) ground superiority doesn't mean total battlefield superiority.

It's actually some spectacularly old-fashioned aircraft that I'd say constitute the most frightening nightmare for a tank crew.  The A-10 Thunderbolt is a predatory reptile of an aircraft, a new evolution of a prehistoric design.  They just built a plane around the most massive gun they could make.  It'll put 30mm rounds completely through buildings and pulverize the foundation until it collapses.  I've also heard it can go through the armor on an M1 depending on the range.

HEAT as shells is an obsolete technology that has been defeated since long by as you say, composite armour, and especially ERA armour. It is still widely used in AT rockets though, especially in man portable RPGs or ATGMs since it can still threaten any kind of armoured vehicle, but the most modern RPGs do it specifically by using twin charges or more where one is meant to defeat the ERA layer, and the other one to pierce through the rest of the armour like in butter.

I can assure you that any modern MBT can be killed pretty easily, be it a M1 SEP, Leo A6, Challenger 2, T-80UM, T-90UM, or whatever. By planes, or by ground forces. Less so in asymmetrical warfare, granted. In most conflicts they just have to face crappy old RPG-7s and that kind of stuff... But as I said above, go ask that challenger 2 crew how they felt after getting hit by a twin shaped charged that didnt even explode. Or the few Merkhava crews that got into trouble in the last Lebanon war, and here again, against modern russian military equipment.

In any case, MBT are hardly the answer in asymmetrical warfare. They are less prone to be destroyed sure, but they are not very adequate in the role that is expected of ground forces in that kind of conflict. IFVs and APCs, as well as light armoured vehicles, are the way to go.

[Lyn Farel]

Intermission

[Vic Van Meter]

Intermission

When I have time, I'll go over the parabolic ballistics, or why firing in a monstrously high arc can be more effective than firing head on, especially against something like plate where kinetic energy matters so much.

But other than a couple things, that was pretty interesting.  And hilarious.  I'm reminded of a joke Andy Parsons made when they were first talking about Scottish independence on Mock the Week.  "The Scots hate the English, the Welsh hate the English, and the English hate everyone, including most of the English.  And this is a nation known for its tolerance.  Small wonder we're so tolerant, having to live in a country full of people we can't bloody stand!"

I didn't know that the French crossbowmen were deprived of their shields at Crecy due to logistics issues, though.  That's new to me and goes some way to explaining why they were so absolutely ineffective at the battle.  Crossbows weren't as flexible or variable as longbow tactics, but you don't have to train a crossbow archer for twenty years to have the back to use one.

[Lyn Farel]

I don't know either if it's true, for that logistics issue, but apparently from what I read it was the case yes.

They manage to screw everything, they had wet crossbows unable to shoot correctly or far, no pavisces, and then all the infantry started to charge like madmen to be the first ones on the english, while the king ordered them to stop, making half of them to actually do it while the others got invigorated to see that they were even closer to be the first on the enemy that way...

It is said that documented sources are extremely confused and conflicting at times. Tbh i'm pretty surprised by the good deal of accuracy shown in that comics.

[Vic Van Meter]

I don't know either if it's true, for that logistics issue, but apparently from what I read it was the case yes.

They manage to screw everything, they had wet crossbows unable to shoot correctly or far, no pavisces, and then all the infantry started to charge like madmen to be the first ones on the english, while the king ordered them to stop, making half of them to actually do it while the others got invigorated to see that they were even closer to be the first on the enemy that way...

It is said that documented sources are extremely confused and conflicting at times. Tbh i'm pretty surprised by the good deal of accuracy shown in that comics.

It's a problem with historical sources.... okay it's a problem with any source of any time, that historians of their day were court historians and therefore had all the excuses in the world to exaggerate on their clients' behalf.  I heard that at the battle of Crecy, the English count was fairly accurate only because they'd logged, very accurately, exactly how many people they'd had to pay to ship over and supply.  There's some debate about how many they lost, but since they also had to transport them back, modern historians have a little more documentation to work from.  As far as the French go, not only did their sources estimate the size of the British army to an immense degree, they also didn't count much as far as their own people went.  I think they listed knights and I'm supposing have some documentation about their mercenaries, but they were joined by vast swathes of commoners who were not recorded to be there nor were their deaths recorded to any degree.

Of course, there's also another problem with historical accounts of military size: winners tend to write the history and you can't send an independent press out to take a head count of something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Even if they'd wanted to be as accurate as possible, if you're on the losing side of a battle, you probably would overestimate the size of the enemy force simply because they'd seem like they were everywhere.  There are plenty of ways to mask numbers that were used on a routine basis since the dawn of war that might cause a severe underestimation as well.

Also a good point, where sometimes it seems like we always give credit to the winners, Sun Tzu made an excellent point about warfare being the art of exposing your enemies' weaknesses and masking your own, while forcing them to attack your strengths and abandon theirs.  The French weren't experienced in fighting a war of that style and scale.  They lost it every bit as much as the Brits won it.  There's nothing that helps a longbow formation like lining people up your own crossbow line just inside their range but just outside your own, then having a breakdown in discipline that sends your own infantry in a slow, uphill charge in small, bite-sized portions.  You can talk about things like the machine gun being a game-changer in warfare and one of the most important military inventions of all time, but it helps when the enemy lines up and marches slowly towards you in a short rifle line with a drum and horn blaring.

[Lyn Farel]

Au contraire, french reports from that time not only over inflated the brittish army (understandable, they must have thought they were legion considering the number of arrows...), told to be around 30k where they were just 12k, but also did the same with their own as well, over 100k where they were in reality "from 24k to 50k", which is still completely confused considering the mess it was in when the battle happened. They also overestimated their own casualties to over 30k where they were 1300 knights and 16000 men at arms in reality. However, there is only one account around which everyone seems to agree : the brits lost between 100 and 300 people at Crécy.

Also, the french actually won the war and didnt lost every bit as the brits won it. Which makes it interesting is that Edouard was winning at the beginning in 1337, and then suddenly started to lose due to a change of tactics done by Charles V to deny the english any battle in open field again, liberating stronghold after stronghold. In 1380 France is more or less completely liberated, and the english losing. Then Charles V starts to lose his mind and civil war breaks out between the Armagnac party (Duke of Orléans) and Burgundy, which allows the english to win another slaughter at Agincourt against a country completely disorganized again, and reconquering half of France territory. And then, it's the siege of Orléans and Patay. What is interesting is that both were victors at some point over so many years, and both kept their records.

[Vic Van Meter]

Au contraire, french reports from that time not only over inflated the brittish army (understandable, they must have thought they were legion considering the number of arrows...), told to be around 30k where they were just 12k, but also did the same with their own as well, over 100k where they were in reality "from 24k to 50k", which is still completely confused considering the mess it was in when the battle happened. They also overestimated their own casualties to over 30k where they were 1300 knights and 16000 men at arms in reality. However, there is only one account around which everyone seems to agree : the brits lost between 100 and 300 people at Crécy.

Also, the french actually won the war and didnt lost every bit as the brits won it. Which makes it interesting is that Edouard was winning at the beginning in 1337, and then suddenly started to lose due to a change of tactics done by Charles V to deny the english any battle in open field again, liberating stronghold after stronghold. In 1380 France is more or less completely liberated, and the english losing. Then Charles V starts to lose his mind and civil war breaks out between the Armagnac party (Duke of Orléans) and Burgundy, which allows the english to win another slaughter at Agincourt against a country completely disorganized again, and reconquering half of France territory. And then, it's the siege of Orléans and Patay. What is interesting is that both were victors at some point over so many years, and both kept their records.

I think that's my fault, I keep forgetting that the Hundred Years War is all one war, not a series of small wars like we think of everything else as.  I know the French eventually kicked the Brits out, essentially after the Brits took France over.  It always seemed weird to me.  To that logic, we've only had one world war, since the second had quite a bit to do with the first and contained almost exactly the same belligerents.

I guess history isn't really always logical, though.  You're right though, I was only thinking of the campaign that ended prior to Joan of Arc.

[Lyn Farel]

Au contraire, french reports from that time not only over inflated the brittish army (understandable, they must have thought they were legion considering the number of arrows...), told to be around 30k where they were just 12k, but also did the same with their own as well, over 100k where they were in reality "from 24k to 50k", which is still completely confused considering the mess it was in when the battle happened. They also overestimated their own casualties to over 30k where they were 1300 knights and 16000 men at arms in reality. However, there is only one account around which everyone seems to agree : the brits lost between 100 and 300 people at Crécy.

Also, the french actually won the war and didnt lost every bit as the brits won it. Which makes it interesting is that Edouard was winning at the beginning in 1337, and then suddenly started to lose due to a change of tactics done by Charles V to deny the english any battle in open field again, liberating stronghold after stronghold. In 1380 France is more or less completely liberated, and the english losing. Then Charles V starts to lose his mind and civil war breaks out between the Armagnac party (Duke of Orléans) and Burgundy, which allows the english to win another slaughter at Agincourt against a country completely disorganized again, and reconquering half of France territory. And then, it's the siege of Orléans and Patay. What is interesting is that both were victors at some point over so many years, and both kept their records.

I think that's my fault, I keep forgetting that the Hundred Years War is all one war, not a series of small wars like we think of everything else as.  I know the French eventually kicked the Brits out, essentially after the Brits took France over.  It always seemed weird to me.  To that logic, we've only had one world war, since the second had quite a bit to do with the first and contained almost exactly the same belligerents.

I guess history isn't really always logical, though.  You're right though, I was only thinking of the campaign that ended prior to Joan of Arc.

Nah it's true, there was at least one truce - that was not followed by everyone - and periods of relief where both sides were just staring back at each other because they just had no more meatbags to send in the meatgrinder that was running for so many years...

It is also true that a kindof unofficial truce existed prior to Jehanne's arrival, Orléans being the last bastion that was still resisting... It was not even an army in itself, just a city.

[Vic Van Meter]

Au contraire, french reports from that time not only over inflated the brittish army (understandable, they must have thought they were legion considering the number of arrows...), told to be around 30k where they were just 12k, but also did the same with their own as well, over 100k where they were in reality "from 24k to 50k", which is still completely confused considering the mess it was in when the battle happened. They also overestimated their own casualties to over 30k where they were 1300 knights and 16000 men at arms in reality. However, there is only one account around which everyone seems to agree : the brits lost between 100 and 300 people at Crécy.

Also, the french actually won the war and didnt lost every bit as the brits won it. Which makes it interesting is that Edouard was winning at the beginning in 1337, and then suddenly started to lose due to a change of tactics done by Charles V to deny the english any battle in open field again, liberating stronghold after stronghold. In 1380 France is more or less completely liberated, and the english losing. Then Charles V starts to lose his mind and civil war breaks out between the Armagnac party (Duke of Orléans) and Burgundy, which allows the english to win another slaughter at Agincourt against a country completely disorganized again, and reconquering half of France territory. And then, it's the siege of Orléans and Patay. What is interesting is that both were victors at some point over so many years, and both kept their records.

I think that's my fault, I keep forgetting that the Hundred Years War is all one war, not a series of small wars like we think of everything else as.  I know the French eventually kicked the Brits out, essentially after the Brits took France over.  It always seemed weird to me.  To that logic, we've only had one world war, since the second had quite a bit to do with the first and contained almost exactly the same belligerents.

I guess history isn't really always logical, though.  You're right though, I was only thinking of the campaign that ended prior to Joan of Arc.

Nah it's true, there was at least one truce - that was not followed by everyone - and periods of relief where both sides were just staring back at each other because they just had no more meatbags to send in the meatgrinder that was running for so many years...

It is also true that a kindof unofficial truce existed prior to Jehanne's arrival, Orléans being the last bastion that was still resisting... It was not even an army in itself, just a city.

The best part is how often the Brits would invade and take over large swaths of France, then the next king would decide he didn't like running France and would essentially give it away.  Then, the next king would roll through France and start killing them again.  Britain was like a fast-moving human polar ice cap for Europe.

We sometimes forget, now that the Brits are a bit of an uptight society known for being stiff and proper in the States, that we learned all we know about being an evil, foreign-body-invading superpower from the Brits.

I think they learned it from the Mongols...

[orange]

I think (the Brits) learned it from the Mongols...

Normans, Vikings, Angles & Saxons, and Romans.  I think that is the right order.

[Vic Van Meter]

I think (the Brits) learned it from the Mongols...

Normans, Vikings, Angles & Saxons, and Romans.  I think that is the right order.

If a group invades Britain, takes it over, then later becomes British, does that still count?  Britain was invaded over and over, but the people there invariably somehow became British.  It's weird that the Danes didn't make Britain part of their country when they invaded.  They're probably kicking themselves with how small their territory is now.

[kalaratiri]

I think (the Brits) learned it from the Mongols...

Normans, Vikings, Angles & Saxons, and Romans.  I think that is the right order.

If a group invades Britain, takes it over, then later becomes British, does that still count?  Britain was invaded over and over, but the people there invariably somehow became British.  It's weird that the Danes didn't make Britain part of their country when they invaded.  They're probably kicking themselves with how small their territory is now.

Well, while they never made England officially part of Denmark, King Canute (Cnut, Canut, Kanute, Knut, Kanut) the Great managed to get himself named King of England, Denmark, and parts of Southern Norway.

And yes Orange, that is the correct order (although reverse chronologically ). As an Englishman, and a major Viking enthusiast, I take a certain amount of pleasure in reminding people that England has never actually been invaded by the French. The Normans led by William were only around two generations down from the Viking raiders (led, I believe by Rollo) that the French King at the time bought off by giving them Normandy. As the English at the time were also so thouroughly integrated with the Danish and Norwegian settlers, 1066 was less a case of the English vs the French, and more Vikings vs other Vikings. 

[Lyn Farel]

The best part is how often the Brits would invade and take over large swaths of France, then the next king would decide he didn't like running France and would essentially give it away.  Then, the next king would roll through France and start killing them again.  Britain was like a fast-moving human polar ice cap for Europe.

You mean in the Hundred Years War ?

I don't recall any other true british invasion (as in for territory)...

I think (the Brits) learned it from the Mongols...

Normans, Vikings, Angles & Saxons, and Romans.  I think that is the right order.

If a group invades Britain, takes it over, then later becomes British, does that still count?  Britain was invaded over and over, but the people there invariably somehow became British.  It's weird that the Danes didn't make Britain part of their country when they invaded.  They're probably kicking themselves with how small their territory is now.

I tend to lean more on the opposite way of thought on the matter. It's not that they all suddenly became british, it's just that they all contributed at some point on what british actually means.

Britain in the 100 Years War was... not really british as we know it... It was a lot of various people ruled by a diluted Norman legacy, all with french names...

Britain before that was also defined by the other ones that came before (Angles, Saxons, etc).