- robust lock-on against tanks with good camouflageOriginally Posted by Granite_State
- susceptible to modern countermeasures (specially the active ones)
- difficulties against targets with same IR profile as their surroundings (the earth bunker problem)
- sensor in missile drives up the price, thus making the missile less suitable for low chance shots.
That's not just an issue with the Javelin seeker.
Javelin has many issues, as does the conceptionally similar Spike.
A Tank is more then just a gun behind some armor
Some of the things an MBT can do for you even in small numbers.
1. Provide stabilized platform with advanced fire control for machine guns.
2. Provide a range or main gun ammo types to be able to address a wide range of targets and circumstances.
3. A heavily protected platform from which to rally friendly troops and conduct C2.
4. A heavy vehicle to use brute force to smash through walls, buildings and obstacles.
5. A weapon system capable of rapidly firing accurately at point targets at long and very long range.
Yep. All things it did in 1917 or 18. It's an infantry support weapon, and it has never progressed from being "a covered field gun," which is what it does best.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Uh...not really, at least in terms of "being able to do those things" in 1917 or 1918. I would say that the tank was (at best) in its infancy during WW 1 and didn't attain the majority of the capabilities mentioned by TAH until World War 2.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
The tanks in WW2 were more capable, but there were few "new capabilities," bar the specialist engineer vehicles.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Actually, what it does best is to exploit, which relegates infantry to a "tank support weapon".
Which is as it should be. Inferiors SHOULD support their superiors.
Are you confusing concept with design? Everything those tanks were designed to do, was being done in WW1. I would further suggest that the Tiger2 was a failed concept, and poorly designed as a result.
Light, Medium and Heavy, all exist today, and never went away. They have merely morphed, from what they were in WW1.
So show me 8-10 + times where unsupported armour successfully exploited to gain ground and hold it? The historical records shows this as very rare and often leading to sever tank losses.
Guys, I am not writing my Thesis here on a bulletin board. OK, my bad for letting the cat out of the bag, but I am merely trying to get away from the "I love tanks" school of history.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks