Significance of the Al Khalid

V

vincelee

Junior Member
maybe the Iraqis can tell you about M1's armor....seriously, no modern tank survive urban combat for long. But Jatt, you are actually right for once in that Soviet tanks were meant to out flank and out number NATO armor. I would go one step further and say that Soviet armor is used to out run NATO tanks and for straight for logistics hub and HQs-NATO tanks are countered by Su-25s and artillery.

However, ArjunMk1 is wrong.......again.

Hold and fight my ass. Have you ever heard of the term "spear head" or "combined assault"? Tank is offensive in nature, if you use them like the Iraqis did, as turrets, then your entire armor force is dead. Hold and fight went out of style with WWII son.
 
F

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
vincelee said:
maybe the Iraqis can tell you about M1's armor....seriously, no modern tank survive urban combat for long. But Jatt, you are actually right for once in that Soviet tanks were meant to out flank and out number NATO armor. I would go one step further and say that Soviet armor is used to out run NATO tanks and for straight for logistics hub and HQs-NATO tanks are countered by Su-25s and artillery.

However, ArjunMk1 is wrong.......again.

Hold and fight my ass. Have you ever heard of the term "spear head" or "combined assault"? Tank is offensive in nature, if you use them like the Iraqis did, as turrets, then your entire armor force is dead. Hold and fight went out of style with WWII son.
Click to expand...

Errm didn't the Israeli's use hold and fight against the Syrians ?
 
Kampfwagen

Kampfwagen

Junior Member
Using tanks as a turet is definately a strategy only used by the desperate. Typicaly speaking, all it takes is a Forward Observer to signal where the tank is, then it is bombed into dust. About the best example I can give of tanks being used as turrets is WW2, when the Germans would use King Tigers as turrets by burrying them in the street where the street was bombed out. This was however a tactic of desperation rather than legitimate strategy.

As for the whole Soviet armor is inferior thing, it sounds like the typical attidute for those raised in the west. To this day, many continue to say that the 72 was inferior to the time. Keep in mind, the T-72 could kick the snot out of an M60 Patton tank, which is what it was primarily designed to fight against (amongst other western tanks). The Iraq war can not be provided as a good example. The tread-skirts of his T-72's were repainted rubber placemats for god's sake. That, and by the time the Abrams came out, the 72 was obscelete. Though a T-90 might not be able to stand up to the Abrams or French/German modern MBT's on a straight-up fight, it is still quite a capable gun platform that can take on a good portion of the armor usualy seen in Russia's more unstable Ex-Bloc countries, or around the world for that matter.
 
Red not Dead

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
crazyinsane105 said:
I do have something to add here. If the Al Khalid isn't able to stand up against the Indian T-90's, then Pakistan would have probably ordered more T-84's. Basically if the PA didn't think the Al Khalid could pose a huge threat to the Indian Army then the PA would have ordered more T-84's or other high tech tanks. Also, the Al Khalid II may be out as early as next year according to Kanwa. So if the Al Khalid isn't good enough to go against the T-90S, then the Al Khalid II will be.

The action in Checnya has not at all died down. Russian soldiers are killed on a daily basis and Checnyan militants control large parts of Checnya. However, let's not get into that discussion since there is already a thread about that topic.
Click to expand...

What chechnya has to doo with massive armour battles? Killed on daily basis? Plesae cut the propaganda crap.
 
Red not Dead

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
vincelee said:
maybe the Iraqis can tell you about M1's armor....seriously, no modern tank survive urban combat for long. But Jatt, you are actually right for once in that Soviet tanks were meant to out flank and out number NATO armor. I would go one step further and say that Soviet armor is used to out run NATO tanks and for straight for logistics hub and HQs-NATO tanks are countered by Su-25s and artillery.

However, ArjunMk1 is wrong.......again.

Hold and fight my ass. Have you ever heard of the term "spear head" or "combined assault"? Tank is offensive in nature, if you use them like the Iraqis did, as turrets, then your entire armor force is dead. Hold and fight went out of style with WWII son.
Click to expand...

If tank is offensive in nature explain me how the fuck the Abrams can be called a defensive tank....and the russian one ment to lead an assault on NATO while being tincans...we've gone that way in the past i don't want to start a flame war.
 
V

vincelee

Junior Member
The Jews definitely did not use tanks as turrets, at least not consciously. If anything, the IDF used quite a bit of CAS/BAI on tanks. Also, the quality of Arabic military leaders is......not the best. Much better than the pesky Iraqi and the moronic Saudis over all, however.
 
V

vincelee

Junior Member
Red not Dead said:
If tank is offensive in nature explain me how the fuck the Abrams can be called a defensive tank....and the russian one ment to lead an assault on NATO while being tincans...we've gone that way in the past i don't want to start a flame war.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you've lost me. I was, first of all, talking about doctrine, not tanks. And I don't think I've ever labelled tanks as "defensive" or such.
 
F

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
I'm no expert on tank warfare but the way i read it during 1973 a few Israeli
tanks managed to ward off an invading syrian tank force which heavily
outnumbered them.

The americans then spoke to the Israeli soldiers involved and use this as
a basis to change their military doctrine against the warsaw pact in the early
1980's

The M1A1 was a result of this doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top