Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Another Book Arrived (Patreon)

Published:
2016-09-09 07:40:04
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

Got Tank versus Tank yesterday, thank you for your support!

Comments

Isabelle Chua

In your personal view, considering the advances in handheld and other anti-armour weapons, and the very different army structures, doctrines, and tactics in comparison to the previous paradigm of interstate industrial war, how effective are modern armoured forces at what they do? What would happen if two moden armoured formations met each other in combat in the same way a Panzer-Division could have encountered a Guards Tank Army? Do armoured units continue to hold the same operational value as they used to - as a swift and decisive force?

Military History Visualized
>>2503031

short answer: I am clearly not qualified nor knowledgeable enough (yet) to answer this question. longer answer: it really depends which armies would be fighting each other and how they would be used. Especially the situation of air superiority and the deployment of close air support could extremely influence the outcome. Generally, I would think that Armor Divisions would continue to be extremely useful in operational terms, because they still can punch through an enemy line, even more so if you have smaller armies, thus a deep stacked defense is far harder to establish. I assume that the main challenge would be to protect the armored spearhead from the air, but this was already a problem in WW2. Handheld anti-tank weapons could have a major influence, but that is hard to tell, because so far I don't know of two modern "symmetrical armies" fighting each other. Handheld weapons can be deadly, but tanks in World War 2 in urban warfare without infantry support were also ****ed. I assume a modern army is sufficiently trained to suppress the enemies anti-tank infantry sufficiently to not get completely turned to smitherns, but of course it could be the case that these weapons are so potent now that tanks could be obsolete, similar to battleships in WW2. Although Mitchell predicted the effectiveness of planes vs. ships he was a bit too early and also some projects like the B-17 vs. ships were not successful. Thus, only a war would show us what would really happen, because visionaries are probably as often wrong as their opponents.