new 60 ton tank for the PLA

Hendrik_2000 said:

BTW German defeat in Kursk has nothing to do with defensive or offensive strategy . Though Von Manstein lost the battle in kursk, he still planned for orderly retreat but what killed him is the order from Hitler to move his main tank regiment to fight in Italy theater. End game for Von Manstein

Click to expand...

It was a lot more complex than that. Earlier on Hitler had to choose between

Mainstein/Guderian's proposal of mobile defence. The objective was to try and achieve local area victories over an advancing Russian force,hopefully inflicting severe casulties.or Zeitler?/Zeitzler? codenamed Citadel. plan. which was the familiar Blitkreig type.

Unfortunately the Russians had obtained every detail of operation Citadel through their spynetwork and . knew how to counter every German Move. Plus the Russians held in reserve an army as large as the German forces that had fought the previous week. This and larger numbers contributed to the defeat. IMO the forces transferred to Italy would only have delayed the defeat, rather than a German Victory.

Ive read speculations on what might have happed had Hitler gone with Guderian's plan, but thats another story based on speculation.

bladerunner said:

It was a lot more complex than that. Earlier on Hitler had to choose between

Mainstein/Guderian's proposal of mobile defence. The objective was to try and achieve local area victories over an advancing Russian force,hopefully inflicting severe casulties.or Zeitler?/Zeitzler? codenamed Citadel. plan. which was the familiar Blitkreig type.

Unfortunately the Russians had obtained every detail of operation Citadel through their spynetwork and . knew how to counter every German Move. Plus the Russians held in reserve an army as large as the German forces that had fought the previous week. This and larger numbers contributed to the defeat. IMO the forces transferred to Italy would only have delayed the defeat, rather than a German Victory.

Ive read speculations on what might have happed had Hitler gone with Guderian's plan, but thats another story based on speculation.

Click to expand...

One can argue that the Operation Citadel was an completely uninspired attack, as the Germans attacked perhaps one of the most obvious locations for an attack; the Kursk salient. The Soviets expected an attack on that salient based upon the battlelines, and the Germans obliged.

Pointblank said:

One can argue that the Operation Citadel was an completely uninspired attack, as the Germans attacked perhaps one of the most obvious locations for an attack; the Kursk salient. The Soviets expected an attack on that salient based upon the battlelines, and the Germans obliged.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I couldnt agree with you more on that point, however the Germans did have an alternative as I pointed out.

One of my original intentions , in introducing the German Russian war was to illustrate a different point of view with the use of the tank even when one is at a disadvantage.

While I primarily see tanks as a offensive, I can appreciate where they can be used in a defensive manner.

Eg Gulf War 1. Saddam let his Tanks get caught in the open. Perhaps he was better off waiting for the Americans to come to him and use the Tanks to support his troops in a House to House street fight.

bladerunner said:

Eg Gulf War 1. Saddam let his Tanks get caught in the open. Perhaps he was better off waiting for the Americans to come to him and use the Tanks to support his troops in a House to House street fight.

Click to expand...

For house to house fight, you need motivated troops. Saddam´s troops didnt have any fighting morale whatever. In fact, in the first gulf war, the coalition killed many iraqi troops who could have just surrendered if talked to.

Of course the lack of will was the deciding factor of why Saddam was beaten so easily, but putting that aside, and just looking at the tactical use of the tanks and the troops in the first place.. THey were no match In the open/ desert situation where the allies dominated the skys and were better trained, IMO they would have been better used , in a defensive manner , supporting troops in defending the cities.

bladerunner said:

Of course the lack of will was the deciding factor of why Saddam was beaten so easily, but putting that aside, and just looking at the tactical use of the tanks and the troops in the first place.. THey were no match In the open/ desert situation where the allies dominated the skys and were better trained, IMO they would have been better used , in a defensive manner , supporting troops in defending the cities.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't have done much good in the first Gulf War anyway, considering the coalition wanted to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait, and most of the Iraqi Army was located in or near Kuwait. If they had withdrawn to fight in the cities of Iraq, there would have been no war. Holding out in Kuwait City was not an option.

Finn McCool said:

Holding out in Kuwait City was not an option.

Click to expand...

If they had the motivation to fight, yes it was. An house to house fight with 100.000+ iraqi troops in kuwait city would have been another stalingrad.

deleted to comply with moderaters request to stay on topic

kroko said:

If they had the motivation to fight, yes it was. An house to house fight with 100.000+ iraqi troops in kuwait city would have been another stalingrad.

Click to expand...

No, no Persian Gulf city has urban terrain that's very well suited to defense. Kuwait City is also totally dependent on the outside world for food and water, so refusal to fight in the desert would have just resulted in the Iraqi's being surrounded and cut off. Why do you think they all tried to withdraw along the Highway of Death when it became apparent that they had been severely outflanked by coalition forces? Motivation to fight would have helped, but there were just no good options for the Iraqis in that war.

Back on topic, I don't see a need for a 60+ ton tank for the PLA. None of China's immediate neighbors have armed forces that can threaten the PLA in land warfare, and China doesn't have the logistical capabilities to move a tank of that size overseas in large numbers. Also a tank that big doesn't fit with PLA doctrine.

However, in the future, urban warfare is only going to get more common, and we've seen in Iraq, Gaza, and elsewhere, that very heavy tanks, when used correctly, are very useful in street to street fighting. So at some point, we might see an "urban survival" upgrade of the Type 99 perhaps, with added armor, skirts for the treads, the sort of the thing the M1A2 TUSK has. This is just shooting the breeze here, but does anyone else think that there is a market for a new kind of AFV specifically for supporting infantry in urban environments? Like an IFV with less carrying capacity but more armor, and multiple remote operated weapon stations optimized for urban environments.