Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
There has not been a major tank battle in over 40 years.
Tanks are only good for mop-up operations in the theater of battle and for para-military police use to intimidate.
Tanks are a primary battle weapon against poorly equipped armies and irregular insurrectionists. Tanks suck on maneuverability in urban warfare; tearing up streets and knocking the sides off buildings.
Saddam had lots of tanks and they got cut to shreds from the air.
|
This is so wrong, that I don't know where to start.
First of all; why it does matter if tanks tear up streets and knock the sides off the buildings? Like rocket and artillery barrages and air strikes would be building friendly. LOL. Contrary, tanks drive inside buildings to conceal themselves. In war cities are just battlefield, nothing more.
Secondly, using tanks in heavily urban environment was avoided WWII and is still avoided (if possible). Instead you can use tanks (and other troops) to battle in more open ground, isolate cities, etc. For example Soviets didn't "attack" Germany's eastern "fortress cities" (occupied cities), they just drove by and left the siege for some mop up troops. Worked pretty well.
And tanks are just one part of the army. Armies are supposed to operate as a whole.