Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams

[Balamut]

This is easy only if side has total air superiority and foe doesn't have means of anti-aircraft defence.
And also it depends on landscape. If it's not an Iraq desert, but Europe - it wouldn't be so easy to find camouflaged tank.
Overall, russian modern combat doctrine consider the tank not as a securing measure, but as the major strike force.

Well, US tank usage doctrine differs alot from russian.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Balamut
This is easy only if side has total air superiority and foe doesn't have means of anti-aircraft defence.
And also it depends on landscape. If it's not an Iraq desert, but Europe - it wouldn't be so easy to find camouflaged tank.
Overall, russian modern combat doctrine consider the tank not as a securing measure, but as the major strike force.

Well, US tank usage doctrine differs alot from russian.

Balamut,

Air superiority is a major goal (even for Russian army) no matter what the battlefield. Iraq had one of the most extensive and modern anti aircraft networks on the planet, yet it was defeated early on in the conflict. Russia also has great tools on hand, and I think the old Soviet era battle plan is as dead an issue as the old NATO plan to counteract it. The world has changed, and as Limey (I think) said, tanks are no longer as important in front line battle as they were a few decades ago. I suspect that a Russian commander would much prefer to have a hundred of the most up to date Kamov Black Shark helicopters than to face a potential enemy on European terrain with a hundred tanks.

That's judging by the results of small wars in recent years, and the direction all countries seem to be moving in primary weapons development. The real details for any country are not known to us, so all any of us can do is speculate, but it is almost certain that "battle plans" that we are aware of are no longer current.

By the way, tanks in forested areas are just as vulnerable as tanks in the desert. Maybe even more so, as they can be accurately located from above by multiple means, including RADAR mapping through dense foliage from standoff or drone aircraft, and attacked at standoff ranges to known coordinates, or quickly killed by helicopters that will know where they are, and can fire on them and retreat before a response can be made. Various other tank killers like the A-10, Su-25/39, etc would still be effective in that environment as well. Given the limited weapon range and mobility of a tank, I don't see it ever having the role it had at Kursk again.


Voyager

Voyager, I found only one wrong point in your post.

Iraq has one of the most outdated Anti-aircraft networks in the world. Their AA systems were Soviet ones designed in 70s at best. They even used non-automatic AA guns that is useless against fast targets such as jet aircraft.

So I would have been very surprised, if such defense hadn't been defeated.

[Rain]

Originally posted by limey_defence
Todays war is fought in the air and mopping is done on the ground. You cannot compare the usage and capibility now to the usage and capibilty of aircraft in the second world war.

Except that today noone fights wars on such a scale anymore. You get your troops into an urban area and its back to square one. RPG + Machine guns + Mines = a deadly weapon against clumsy tanks and disoriented infantry.

Look at Chechnya, Russians couldnt do anything as Chechens obliterated their superior army in 1996. They only "won" in 1999 by bombarding every square inch of Grozny with carpet bombs, effectively causing massive civilian casualties, which really breaks the whole point of the art of war.

Americans did it better, precision attacks and amazing coordination. Though they still bungled up on the administrative level, and now have to face the sting attacks of the decentralized resistance. Which only highlights that the way is a billion times more complicated today than during WWII.

Perhaps the old-school way of fighting is more effective in the end...

R

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Alex_Ivanov
Voyager, I found only one wrong point in your post.

Iraq has one of the most outdated Anti-aircraft networks in the world. Their AA systems were Soviet ones designed in 70s at best. They even used non-automatic AA guns that is useless against fast targets such as jet aircraft.

So I would have been very surprised, if such defense hadn't been defeated.

Alex,

Thanks for the correction. I was considering SAM sites for the most part, and was under the impression that their systems were pretty current. I would figure that auto AAA would still have to see the the enemy before shooting it though, and that was kind of what I was going after. Air based weapons technology and counter technology are moving along at a pace similar to computer development, while the primacy of tanks tends to suffer in it's wake.

Voyager

[limey_defence]

Rain, I was saying not to compare the aircraft usage. The scale of wars will never reach World War 2, but in minor conflicts the tank will become what it was in World War 2, you cannot change a tank. It will always be a lump of metal with a big gun, vunerable in urban areas from people and vunerable anywhere else from aircraft.

They are out dated against a conventional force, and they are internal security and presence against a non-standing army.

[Balamut]

Interesting discussion we have here. When I'll have more free time (I hope soon - doing big term paper right now) will talk about more seriously
P.S.
2 Voyager: I didn't reject that air superiority is major goal, only said that tank is not a only securing measure these days.
2 rain and others: During second chechen campaining federal forces didn't lost any single tank. So tanks are not as clumsy as some think. And, rain, no carpet bombs were used as well as rug shells and other weaved weapons.



[Edited by Balamut on 29th March 2004 at 13:57]