Are tanks still useful in modern warfare?

[tigersag]

I've been playing the game a good week now and noticed quickly how incredibly vulnerable tanks are on today's battlefield.

I'm not sure how well the game approxemates reality but seeing even the most expensive NATO tanks shot down effortlessly by 1 guy with a RPGn and being annoyed by T-62M's, are tanks still useful?

[tigersag]

thanks.. :)

Still.. lost a challenger tank though on the plateau.. 140 points.. it went up the hill near the forest by the airbase in the Albion Plateau mission.. one shot.. one burning heap of very expensive scrap!

I get it.. but it's still disapointing in terms of durablity and the ability of one heavy tank to take out one paratroop squad.

[Lubyak]

In modern warfare, yes the tank is vulnerable, simply because it's such a game changing development. The tank still provides something which is difficult to get, namely an armored vehicle, with large amounts of firepower than keep pace with the infantry, or exploit gaps in the enemy line.

Of course, since tanks are so good, everyones spent the last century or so trying to find newer and better ways of killing them, hence making them very vulnerable when used outside their element. They're vulnerable to ATGMs in open terrain, they're vulnerable to RPGs in dense terrain, but when it comes to supporting the infantry, there is still nothing like a tank.

And part of the genius of wargame is that it reflect this. Unlike some other games, 'tank spam' is not a viable tactic, as even the cheapest infantyr unit can do serious damage to a unit of tanks if the infantry have a good defensive position, and against an excellent defensive position, blindly charging in with tanks will do nothing but cost you a lot of tanks.

So, is the 'tank rush' a dead tactic in both reality and this game? Yes. Is the tank itself a useless hunk of metal? No. You just have to use it more intelligently than simply clicking a bunch of them and telling them to charge.

[tigersag]

actually...

I don't think there's one answer in this game! I found that out trying to different approaches to the "1914 again" mission. I think I'm leaning more towards massign tanks though, so basically the PACT strategy. They don't have any "super tanks" but the T-72 kicks butt really well in a group of them. It's not a super tank like the M1A1, Leopard 2 or the Challenger but it's as replacable as any infantry unit is.

and grouping tanks and clicking them wouldn't have worked in a ww ii game like Close Combat. They would have probably run into a really good anti-tank gun. Still you did have a few tanks then that could withstand that like the KV-2 or the Tiger. So I am just wondering the usefulnes of expensive supertanks when I can buy three times a cheap expendable tank.

Also, I'm a noob who never has 10 challeneger tanks and a 100 apache gunships coz I don't harvest enough coz I can't manage 20 harvestrers and run an offensive. I'm glad I don't have to do that in Wargame EE

[Noob in training]

yes tanks are vulnerable, but thats why they are used in large numbers
they are still very powerfull but need support like infantry and AA

[★ Sergeant Major/Germerica ★]

Yes tanks are vulnerable... u just have to use infantry to counter attack those Anti-Tank and Anti-Air units hidden in the cities and forests. I mean, in real life, yes tanks are shot at easily by infantry with RPGs hiding inside a building/city.

[sp111kg]

Tanks are just one part of a larger force. They can be a support unit, or the main unit. But either way, they can fight it alone, they will need air, and infantry and recon units.

[-CML-big_pharma]

tigersag původně napsal:

I've been playing the game a good week now and noticed quickly how incredibly vulnerable tanks are on today's battlefield.

I'm not sure how well the game approxemates reality but seeing even the most expensive NATO tanks shot down effortlessly by 1 guy with a RPGn and being annoyed by T-62M's, are tanks still useful?

there is a video online of a firefight between insurgents and a single M1A1 abrams. The abrams took 7 RPG hits, including one right up the back, and kept on going. Also, Google the the kill ratio between american abrams tanks and Husein's forces during Desert Storm.

[tomasoltis]

many of the people who play games are informed (read misinformed) by the US propaganda machine, sometimes even claiming that M1s had no casualties whatsoever in desert storm etc.

As for M1 being a super tank, it has no HE/-FRAG munitions so as infantry support in urban areas, ih has machine guns. The shotgun round fills roughly the same role as its machine guns., direct fire. Its armor is far from impenetrable, its weight and mobility through terrain are forcing it to roads, which make for good killzones. I dont advocate here the Russian tanks here, current Leopard 2 is a much better tank overall. Dont forget the supply giant M1 requires. The gas turbine is a fail. RPG-7 tandem warhead can take out an abrams. Also once I saw abrams flying when it allegedly hit 3 AT mines stacked/152mm arty shells on the road. Even though Blacktail defense on youtub is quite bashing US vehicles, there is a lot useful info about abrams and other vehicle, most of the info is like 95% accurate, so its pretty good.

As for T-72. in 1973 was the first production with 125 mm smoothbore cannon. In 1979 there was a new object, which resulted in T-72 A with much improved armor. T-72 was then made in different countries, licensed production, T-72M was some upgraded export model, T-72M1 if Im corerct used armor similar/same as T-72A but with different thickness (soviet being always thicker) T-72B was even further upgrade, a major one. T-72M1 did receive some upgrades from the T-72A

As for Iraq, there were very few exported into the country, T-72, T-72M .. no idea if any T-72M1 ever reached Iraq. Since the embargo on finished tanks on Iraq, they first made a downgrade of the export version, called Saddam, then when there were no more original parts from imported parts, then the Asad Babil tanks were entirely Iraq-made, from mild steel, non-ballistic material.
That doesnt even say a thing about internal equipment. Subpar at best. T-72 in itself wasnt the most heavily armored tank to start with, thats why it went with upgrades, but degrading equipment, when going against some enemy which doesnt have downgrades, but up to date stuff, makes your numbers of very low quality even wosr, not stating the state of Ir. Army or their air defence.

[DarthHammer]

Something that I don't think's been said here yet is that armor in Wargame, especially the heavier/more expensive ones, need constant recon to be effective. Tanks are only vulnerable to infantry when they get too close, and with proper recon the tanks will spot and elimnate those infantry before they are anywhere near in range. As for ATGMs, the ability to spot them and engage with other units, or outmanuver them using the terrain, is dependant on good recon. A good strategey with armor is to use the cheap recon jeeps (both NATO and PACT have them) to scout ahead of your tanks. Even if the recon gets killed, it can give you valuable info, and they can be easily replaced. Though there are some situations where a tank just isn't going to work, like in parts of the map that are simply too forested or too urban to be safe for a force of mostly tanks, though using some (cheaper) tanks to support an infantry advance in that situation is a good idea.

TL;DR, bring lots of recon when you bring lots of armor, it will let you see tank hunters before they kill you.

[Sibi_jss]

in modern warfare they are useful but they need proper support because otherwize they are indeed and easy target for the ennemy airforce. al ready some countries decided that they didn't need tanks in their army any more like the dutch who sold all their leopart 2 M6.

[Exel]

Tanks are vulnerable, but all other ground units are even more vulnerable. There are some weapons that can kill tanks, but there are so many many more weapons that tanks are invulnerable to. Weapons that can kill anything short of a tank.

Tanks offer a combination of firepower, mobility and protection that no other ground unit can offer. They are absolutely essential to any modern ground campaign.

[Tora]

Yes, and no. They have their uses, but are not the "Kings of the Battlefield" they used to be. Operation Desert Storm showed that, the USAF was getting 100 tanks a night with the F-111 Aardvark. In fact, it's common place to hear the term "Tank plinking" now.

[thepioneeringlemming]

they are still useful but their task has been made more difficult by advances in missile technology, modern tanks however have many ways to counter missiles

[Enigmatic]

T-62M's have great ATGM's. But in real ware fare yeah tanks are usfull. They wouldn't be building leopards 2A6 and T-90's if they wern't! Very scary and dominate open fields. Will need support from the Air force, artilery, and Anti air units. Alone they are usless with an army they are an asset.

[Lubyak]

Desert Storm is FAR from a proper decry of tanks. It is important to remember that the tanks the Iraqis were using were not proper Soviet tanks. They were export versions, meaning they were of low quality, meant to be manufactured cheaply. Secondly, they were equipped with domestically produced ammunition, instead of Soviet made ammunition, resulting in the Iraqi Army having tanks that had underpowered rounds.

Additionally, the Iraqis cooperated HEAVILY with the Coalition's attempts to destroy their armor from the air. They parked their tanks in the middle of the dessert, and left them there in defensive positions, giving the Coalition plenty of time to find and kill them with airpower.

Finally, Iraqi doctrine treated tanks more like SPGs than battle tanks. There were reports of Iraqi tanks using HEAT and sabot rounds for indirect fire, like an artillery piece.

The culmination of all these factors, combined with fighting perhaps THE most technologically advanced and well supplied force in the world at the time is what resulted in the one sided massacre on the ground that was Dessert Storm.

It is not something we can count on in the future, or even something that could have been counted on while facing a Soviet force of the same size as the Iraqi one.