www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:Who?

Ah, silly but fun fictional show about the SAS. The French special forces infiltrate a ship in UK waters. The SAS are called in to investigate the ship and end up wiping out the Frenchies in a gunfight before they find out who they really are.

Ah, french getting their asses kicked. Doesn't need much else to be fun.

Indeed. Other series highlights include them beating up Al Queda, invading South Africa and robbing a bank.

They like the cheap sots huh...

Hmm... native troops of foreign rulers... zouave v. sepoy, anyone?

Mikey wrote:Hmm... native troops of foreign rulers... zouave v. sepoy, anyone?

They're about the same aren't they?

Mikey wrote:Hmm... native troops of foreign rulers... zouave v. sepoy, anyone?

Depends on the era, and which regiment. Any time post-1820 the best troops of the Indian Army would wipe the floor with any other soldiers in the world.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:Hmm... native troops of foreign rulers... zouave v. sepoy, anyone?

Depends on the era, and which regiment. Any time post-1820 the best troops of the Indian Army would wipe the floor with any other soldiers in the world.

I'm not talking ghurkas... let's say, pre-rebellion BEIC sepoys vs. original French Algerian zouaves.

Alright, new subject: Tanks.

What would you consider to be the best of it's time? Best of modern times?

Is the time of the tank perhaps drawing to a close? Modern aircraft can cover a much greater area, far faster, and deploy plenty of munitions to a target with a great deal of accuracy. Is there really still a need for a slow moving, heavily armored land vehicle?

If tanks are going to survive into the future, what sort of changes or adaptations might they require?

And will mechs ever replace tanks as the primary heavy land vehicle?

Lighthawk wrote:What would you consider to be the best of it's time?

The Mark I - without any possibility of doubt the best tank of it's day.

WW2 - the T-34/85. It was tactically effective, mechanically reliable, and was produced in quantity. The Germans built tactically better tanks, but they were neither reliable enough not numerous enough to compete with it.

Best of modern times?

You could get a bunch of experts quoting technical data at you for weeks without reaching a conclusion on this, but it's either the Abrams or the Challenger 2.

Is the time of the tank perhaps drawing to a close? Modern aircraft can cover a much greater area, far faster, and deploy plenty of munitions to a target with a great deal of accuracy. Is there really still a need for a slow moving, heavily armored land vehicle?

Yes. Aircraft are fragile, require extremely highly (and expensively) trained pilots, and have limited endurance. A tank on overwatch is invulnerable to most infantry weapons, can be operated after comparatively little training and its endurance is limited only by that of its crew. It is also a far more precise weapon - aircraft are limited to blowing stuff up. A tankie can also fire machine guns, rifle shots, or simply yell at the local drama merchants to fuck off.

If tanks are going to survive into the future, what sort of changes or adaptations might they require?

Fundamentally, none. Weapons systems, defences, and power generation will probably change, but the fundamental form of the tank hasn't changed in the best part of a century.

And will mechs ever replace tanks as the primary heavy land vehicle?

No. Not only no, but hell no.

Captain Seafort wrote:Yes. Aircraft are fragile,

True, though they are less of a sitting duck

require extremely highly (and expensively) trained pilots

Fair point. Though extremely large armies seem to be a thing of past. As time goes on, it seems armies have been trading in quantity for quality.

, and have limited endurance.

Certainly give you that one.

A tank on overwatch is invulnerable to most infantry weapons, can be operated after comparatively little training and its endurance is limited only by that of its crew. It is also a far more precise weapon - aircraft are limited to blowing stuff up. A tankie can also fire machine guns, rifle shots, or simply yell at the local drama merchants to f**k off.

You seem to be regulating the role of the tank to more of a guardian role than battlefield aggressor. As for precision, yeah you can't really engage infantry with jets, but modern missile and bombs are pretty damn accurate. And if you're going to need to shoot up troops, do you really need a tank for it? What's wrong with a jeep/Humvee/APC mounting a machine gun for that kind of work?

I guess the question is, do you really need a vehicle that can engage troops and blow up buildings in one? And if you really do, why not use a helicopter? Certainly the tank is better armored then a copter or another land vehicle, but is it that needed? What job does a tank do that nothing else can?

Fundamentally, none. Weapons systems, defences, and power generation will probably change, but the fundamental form of the tank hasn't changed in the best part of a century.

Ain't broke, so don't fix it? Short of some unknown future technological development, the tank is just fine as is?

No. Not only no, but hell no.

Not a fan of the walkers huh?

Captain Seafort wrote:The Mark I - without any possibility of doubt the best only tank of it's day.

Use interchangeably.

If we're considering the ability of an individual tank, then the Tiger must be added to Seafort's list. If we're talking about a tank's overall effectiveness, then it stays on the sidelines due to the reasons mentioned above. For honorable mentions, I'd add the Centurion (despite fuel efficiency that makes the Abrams look like a hybrid) and the Merkava.

Walkers? Doubt it. Legs are just more unstable for a machine that size than more traditional ground-effect drives.

Lighthawk wrote:You seem to be regulating the role of the tank to more of a guardian role than battlefield aggressor.

That's what they're being used for now, so it's what I tend to default to. They're still useful for their traditional role, for reasons I'll go into below.

As for precision, yeah you can't really engage infantry with jets, but modern missile and bombs are pretty damn accurate.

They also make a very big bang. In COIN operations, being able to kill one man, and one man only, is more important than being able to flatten buildings.

And if you're going to need to shoot up troops, do you really need a tank for it? What's wrong with a jeep/Humvee/APC mounting a machine gun for that kind of work?

The fact that modern RPGs go through them like tissue paper. I'm not talking about shooting up troops so much as shooting up the Taleban or local equivalent - a combination of good fieldcraft on their part and rules of engagement on ours mean that they'll probably get off the first shot, and nothing short of an up-armoured IFV or tank can reliably shrug off such attacks.

I guess the question is, do you really need a vehicle that can engage troops and blow up buildings in one?

Yes. It grants flexibility - a vehicle that is available immediately to engage enemy infantry, strongpoints and armour, or that can sit doing nothing watching a road junction for hours on end. It can engage without having to be called up from a cab rank, without the inherent problems of identifying the right target from thousands of feet up, and can be integrated far more closely with the infantry it's supporting, partially because it's on the ground so the CO can wander over to have a chat face-to-face, partially because it's available in far greater numbers - an Abrams costs about $6.2 million, while even a basic F-16 costs three times as much, let alone a Hornet, Strike Eagle or JSF.

And if you really do, why not use a helicopter?

Too indiscriminate and too vulnerable.

What job does a tank do that nothing else can?

See above.

Not a fan of the walkers huh?

[/quote]

No. They're much taller than an equivalent tank, exposing them unnecessarily to enemy fire, and they're mechanically far more complex, making them vulnerable to breakdowns.

Captain Seafort wrote:That's what they're being used for now, so it's what I tend to default to.

Fair enough

They also make a very big bang. In COIN operations, being able to kill one man, and one man only, is more important than being able to flatten buildings.

Killing one man only seems more of a job for infantry, wouldn't you think?

The fact that modern RPGs go through them like tissue paper. I'm not talking about shooting up troops so much as shooting up the Taleban or local equivalent - a combination of good fieldcraft on their part and rules of engagement on ours mean that they'll probably get off the first shot, and nothing short of an up-armoured IFV or tank can reliably shrug off such attacks.

Ah, now that makes some good sense. Does beg the question, just how available are RPGs to forces like the Taleban?

Yes. It grants flexibility - a vehicle that is available immediately to engage enemy infantry, strongpoints and armour, or that can sit doing nothing watching a road junction for hours on end. It can engage without having to be called up from a cab rank, without the inherent problems of identifying the right target from thousands of feet up, and can be integrated far more closely with the infantry it's supporting, partially because it's on the ground so the CO can wander over to have a chat face-to-face, partially because it's available in far greater numbers - an Abrams costs about $6.2 million, while even a basic F-16 costs three times as much, let alone a Hornet, Strike Eagle or JSF.

So you have a vehicle that can sit around more or less indefinitely on site and be ready to engage practically instantly to just about whatever kind of force is likely to be able to come upon it unnoticed, and survive the likely element of surprise the enemy force will have. And is cheaper than the alternatives.

Alright, got to agree, as a defensive element, a tank is a hell of an option.

And if you really do, why not use a helicopter?

Too indiscriminate and too vulnerable.

While I certainly won't disagree on the vulnerable part, at least compared to a tank, a tank is really that much more precise?

No. They're much taller than an equivalent tank, exposing them unnecessarily to enemy fire, and they're mechanically far more complex, making them vulnerable to breakdowns.

Certainly marks against them. So, regulated to scifi, or just waiting for technology to make them viable? Not necessarily as a tank replacement, but perhaps for some other role?

Killing one man only seems more of a job for infantry, wouldn't you think?

Depends on what that man is armed with. The first time you advance against enemy fire, you'll pray to God... FOR A TANK.

Ah, now that makes some good sense. Does beg the question, just how available are RPGs to forces like the Taleban?

Can you make a phone call to Russia or Iran by chance? They both make and sell them cheap and in bulk.

While I certainly won't disagree on the vulnerable part, at least compared to a tank, a tank is really that much more precise?

Yes.