Karrar MBT l Updates, News & Discussion

[VEVAK]

No, during the Gulf War it was the Bradley vehicles that did most of the damage to Iraqi's armored tanks. Not the Abrams. They are just in the front able to take the punishment, not so the Bradleys. But still its an armored vehicle, not infantry.

Just cause you point out infantry were used in Lebanon War of 2006 against Israeli tanks, means we should all ditched the tanks or expect no more large tank battles? I could use Chechen war against Russian tanks and claim its obsolete to expect tank vs tanks because Chechens don't have tanks and were able to inflict damage. That be like saying anti ship missiles made warships obsolete or SAMs system made fighters and bombers obsolete. There will always be conflict whether its large conventional warfare or guerilla warfare where sometimes the enemy doesn't have tanks and have to figure out a way to fight another way. Just like Syrian war. But as I have said, that doesn't mean tank vs tank large scale battles is dead. Just the situation where some enemies are too poor to able to have tanks. And I can point out countries like China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc, still spend money on tanks and are expected to fight large conventional battles.



Wrong, since the introduction of ATGMs, large tank battles have not died. When was ATGM introduced? How many large tank battles exist since then? When Egypt had Sagger missiles and inflict heavy losses on Israeli tanks, did that mean Egypt didn't need tanks anymore?

I didn't say you don't need tanks anymore! I said the days of large Tank battles are over especially ones that decide the outcome of a war!

Israeli's tried to invade southern Lebanon in 2006 what happened? everyone knows what happened and why they were so unsuccessful! That fact is clear! So a larger tank force does NOT make your country any more powerful! Not that you don't need Tanks anymore they are still important but the way you use them is not the same as it once was you don't have large tank battles anymore and any country that tries to go down that path a larger Tank force or bigger cannons are not what will decide the outcome of such a battle!

 

[Oldman1]

I'm not saying Tanks are obsolete but they are offensive weapons not defensive ones. In my opinion, infantry is much more effective defensive weapon against tanks than tanks themselves.

Countries like US may like to use Tanks as defensive weapons but any budget conscious nation would use infantry and advanced ATGMs against a tank invasion.

You can see the same about Naval units. We are not going to see WW1 era battleship against battleship fight anymore. When it comes to naval defense, fighter jets and land fired missiles are more effective than destroyer against destroyer.

Depends on the situation. If you use infantry in tank country terrain, they will pretty much be dead. If used in mountains, cities, jungle, that be different. Tanks could also be used as defensive when guarding something. And if attacked and see they are being overwhelmed they just reverse while firing to retreat.

I didn't say you don't need tanks anymore! I said the days of large Tank battles are over especially ones that decide the outcome of a war!

Israeli's tried to invade southern Lebanon in 2006 what happened? everyone knows what happened and why they were so unsuccessful! That fact is clear! So a larger tank force does NOT make your country any more powerful! Not that you don't need Tanks anymore they are still important but the way you use them is not the same as it once was you don't have large tank battles anymore and any country that tries to go down that path a larger Tank force or bigger cannons are not what will decide the outcome of such a battle!

I'm sorry but applying that case in the Lebanon War of 2006 is flawed. Just because Hezbollah didn't have tanks and Israel did does not make large tank battles obsolete. As I have pointed out in some situations, some calls for guerilla warfare, others conventional large battles.

I didn't say you don't need tanks anymore! I said the days of large Tank battles are over especially ones that decide the outcome of a war!

Israeli's tried to invade southern Lebanon in 2006 what happened? everyone knows what happened and why they were so unsuccessful! That fact is clear! So a larger tank force does NOT make your country any more powerful! Not that you don't need Tanks anymore they are still important but the way you use them is not the same as it once was you don't have large tank battles anymore and any country that tries to go down that path a larger Tank force or bigger cannons are not what will decide the outcome of such a battle!

Let me ask you this. What is the purpose of having a new tank made by Iran? You said tanks are important but what will you utilize them for?

 

[VEVAK]

Depends on the situation. If you use infantry in tank country terrain, they will pretty much be dead. If used in mountains, cities, jungle, that be different. Tanks could also be used as defensive when guarding something. And if attacked and see they are being overwhelmed they just reverse while firing to retreat.



I'm sorry but applying that case in the Lebanon War of 2006 is flawed. Just because Hezbollah didn't have tanks and Israel did does not make large tank battles obsolete. As I have pointed out in some situations, some calls for guerilla warfare, others conventional large battles.



Let me ask you this. What is the purpose of having a new tank made by Iran? You said tanks are important but what will you utilize them for?

You can utilize them for defense & offense

And how you use them depends on the terrain, situation & many other factors!

Who has Air Superiority? If you do your tactics change, if you don't your tactics change.
Are you the invader or are you being invaded?

By no means am I saying Tanks are obsolete all I'm saying is that large tank vs tank battles are OVER so the cannon you have on your tank will not be a deciding factor and If your foolish enough to go down that path then you are a fool!

U.S. with Air Superiority still used tanks to invade Iraq BUT they had a smaller Tank force but still I believe U.S. IFV with ATGM killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams also U.S. special forces on the ground using ATGM's killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams!
Conclusion is that you could of switched the Abrams cannon with a T-72 cannon or any other MBT and it wouldn't of made the slightest difference in the outcome of any of the battles that happened

 

[Oldman1]

You can utilize them for defense & offense

And how you use them depends on the terrain, situation & many other factors!

Who has Air Superiority? If you do your tactics change, if you don't your tactics change.
Are you the invader or are you being invaded?

By no means am I saying Tanks are obsolete all I'm saying is that large tank vs tank battles are OVER so the cannon you have on your tank will not be a deciding factor and If your foolish enough to go down that path then you are a fool!

U.S. with Air Superiority still used tanks to invade Iraq BUT they had a smaller Tank force but still I believe U.S. IFV with ATGM killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams also U.S. special forces on the ground using ATGM's killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams!
Conclusion is that you could of switched the Abrams cannon with a T-72 cannon or any other MBT and it wouldn't of made the slightest difference in the outcome of any of the battles that happened

This is why we adopt air land battle. Combine arms of utilizing air and land forces. Not just using tanks, don't assume I'm a fool. But you be a fool to think large tank battles are obsolete and the tactics are ditched just because of recent years of seeing mostly tanks vs infantry with ATGMs.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

No, during the Gulf War it was the Bradley vehicles that did most of the damage to Iraqi's armored tanks. Not the Abrams. They are just in the front able to take the punishment, not so the Bradleys. But still its an armored vehicle, not infantry.

Just cause you point out infantry were used in Lebanon War of 2006 against Israeli tanks, means we should all ditched the tanks or expect no more large tank battles? I could use Chechen war against Russian tanks and claim its obsolete to expect tank vs tanks because Chechens don't have tanks and were able to inflict damage. That be like saying anti ship missiles made warships obsolete or SAMs system made fighters and bombers obsolete. There will always be conflict whether its large conventional warfare or guerilla warfare where sometimes the enemy doesn't have tanks and have to figure out a way to fight another way. Just like Syrian war. But as I have said, that doesn't mean tank vs tank large scale battles is dead. Just the situation where some enemies are too poor to able to have tanks. And I can point out countries like China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc, still spend money on tanks and are expected to fight large conventional battles.



Wrong, since the introduction of ATGMs, large tank battles have not died. When was ATGM introduced? How many large tank battles exist since then? When Egypt had Sagger missiles and inflict heavy losses on Israeli tanks, did that mean Egypt didn't need tanks anymore?

Most of iraqi casualities were due to air campaign.

Yes some iraqi tanks were killed by abrams and bradleys... but keep in mind that iraqis were using monkey asad e babil tanks with bad crews.

While the revolutionary guards did perform better despite them also using export model soviet T-72s and obsolete ammo.

...


An interesting fact.

Reza Shah offered Gen Ayub to jointly produce a tank, i believe Ayub thought the era of tanks was over and later 65 war saw the worlds largest tank battle after WWII:

 

[Oldman1]

Most of iraqi casualities were due to air campaign.

Yes some iraqi tanks were killed by abrams and bradleys... but keep in mind that iraqis were using monkey asad e babil tanks with bad crews.

While the revolutionary guards did perform better despite them also using export model soviet T-72s and obsolete ammo.

...


An interesting fact.

Reza Shah offered Gen Ayub to jointly produce a tank, i believe Ayub thought the era of tanks was over and later 65 war saw the worlds largest tank battle after WWII:

View attachment 386105 View attachment 386105

Hence combination of air land battle. Not always depended on sending just one and not the other. It be suicidal to send in tanks with no air superiority. And weakened the enemy main forces.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I didn't say you don't need tanks anymore! I said the days of large Tank battles are over especially ones that decide the outcome of a war!

Israeli's tried to invade southern Lebanon in 2006 what happened? everyone knows what happened and why they were so unsuccessful! That fact is clear! So a larger tank force does NOT make your country any more powerful! Not that you don't need Tanks anymore they are still important but the way you use them is not the same as it once was you don't have large tank battles anymore and any country that tries to go down that path a larger Tank force or bigger cannons are not what will decide the outcome of such a battle!

Israel was foolish to use tanks in built up urban cities against inconventional militias.

But in conventional war, for example Pak - ind war, tank still remains an effective tool.

Otherwise why are nations investing in thousands of tanks in the first place.

Heck Paks even using older type series tanks against taliban:

 

[VEVAK]

This is why we adopt air land battle. Combine arms of utilizing air and land forces. Not just using tanks, don't assume I'm a fool. But you be a fool to think large tank battles are obsolete and the tactics are ditched just because of recent years of seeing mostly tanks vs infantry with ATGMs.

I'll repeat again so you can understand what I'm saying better YOU WILL BE A FOOL to think that in a Tank vs Tank battle your tanks Cannon will be a deciding factor in the outcome! WHY? Because today we have rocket assisted smart rounds......
Also, you would be a fool to think that just because you have more Tanks you have the upper hand!

Tanks are not obsolete! Tanks are very useful and in layman's terms modern Tanks are the supercomputers of your infantry forces! and they are so important that you do NOT put them at risk for tank to tank battles unless absolutely necessary and that is exactly what the U.S. did in 2003 invasion of Iraq!

On the ground during the invasion Special Forces led the way to take out Iraqi tanks and then it was U.S. IFV and the last line was the impressive Abrams tanks! WHY? Because U.S. Military Generals are not stupid enough to put their last line of defense upfront and at risk for large Tank vs Tank battles and it didn't matter that the Abrams was superior and it didn't matter that US Abrams unlike Iraqi tanks had smart round.

Tanks are NOT dead they are just used differently why? because the are the most heavily armored equipment you have on the ground so you equip them with the most advanced electronics, optics, communication system,... that you have! So if your smart the last thing your tanks cannon will be going after is other tanks!
But if both sides are fools then they gear up for large tank vs tank battles

 

[Oldman1]

I'll repeat again so you can understand what I'm saying better YOU WILL BE A FOOL to think that in a Tank vs Tank battle your tanks Cannon will be a deciding factor in the outcome! WHY? Because today we have rocket assisted smart rounds......
Also, you would be a fool to think that just because you have more Tanks you have the upper hand!

You talking about the XM1111 rocket assist round? Dude, sometimes you have to go up front because armor is also a factor besides the cannon to take on the enemy.

Tanks are not obsolete! Tanks are very useful and in layman's terms modern Tanks are the supercomputers of your infantry forces! and they are so important that you do NOT put them at risk for tank to tank battles unless absolutely necessary and that is exactly what the U.S. did in 2003 invasion of Iraq!

LOL! You send in tanks to take on other tanks, always been like that. Just like in thunder run to Baghdad. They are not afraid to send in the tanks just because you think of them as supercomputers which I don't know why you consider that. I'm definitely not sending infantry up front against possible enemy tank armor.

On the ground during the invasion Special Forces led the way to take out Iraqi tanks and then it was U.S. IFV and the last line was the impressive Abrams tanks! WHY? Because U.S. Military Generals are not stupid enough to put their last line of defense upfront and at risk for large Tank vs Tank battles and it didn't matter that the Abrams was superior and it didn't matter that US Abrams unlike Iraqi tanks had smart round.

HOLY COW! Where the hell you hear did? Special Forces led the way to take out Iraqi tanks, then IFVs come in and then Abrams as last in line?

Go to time index 16:00 and see how they shift formation where IFVs move to the back and tanks to the front when facing possible tanks.

Tanks are NOT dead they are just used differently why? because the are the most heavily armored equipment you have on the ground so you equip them with the most advanced electronics, optics, communication system,... that you have! So if your smart the last thing your tanks cannon will be going after is other tanks!
But if both sides are fools then they gear up for large tank vs tank battles

Eh wrong, tank cannons as pretty much most people point out are to take on tanks and to take the punishment because they can handle the hits compare to other vehicles like IFVs or some light skin vehicles.

 

[Aryzin]

You talking about the XM1111 rocket assist round? Dude, sometimes you have to go up front because armor is also a factor besides the cannon to take on the enemy.



LOL! You send in tanks to take on other tanks, always been like that. Just like in thunder run to Baghdad. They are not afraid to send in the tanks just because you think of them as supercomputers which I don't know why you consider that. I'm definitely not sending infantry up front against possible enemy tank armor.



HOLY COW! Where the hell you hear did? Special Forces led the way to take out Iraqi tanks, then IFVs come in and then Abrams as last in line?

Go to time index 16:00 and see how they shift formation where IFVs move to the back and tanks to the front when facing possible tanks.

Eh wrong, tank cannons as pretty much most people point out are to take on tanks and to take the punishment because they can handle the hits compare to other vehicles like IFVs or some light skin vehicles.

@Oldman1 , just out of curiosity you a 19K?

 

[VEVAK]

You talking about the XM1111 rocket assist round? Dude, sometimes you have to go up front because armor is also a factor besides the cannon to take on the enemy.


LOL! You send in tanks to take on other tanks, always been like that. Just like in thunder run to Baghdad. They are not afraid to send in the tanks just because you think of them as supercomputers which I don't know why you consider that. I'm definitely not sending infantry up front against possible enemy tank armor.


HOLY COW! Where the hell you hear did? Special Forces led the way to take out Iraqi tanks, then IFVs come in and then Abrams as last in line?

Go to time index 16:00 and see how they shift formation where IFVs move to the back and tanks to the front when facing possible tanks.

Eh wrong, tank cannons as pretty much most people point out are to take on tanks and to take the punishment because they can handle the hits compare to other vehicles like IFVs or some light skin vehicles.

It doesn't matter what you would do! What the U.S. did in 2003 speaks for it's self!
On the ground the MOST powerful country in the WORLD 1st sent Special Forces armed with ATGM's and after that it was IFV again armed with ATGM's and only after that it was the Abrams.

US didn't send Abrams tanks up front to take out Iraqi tanks because US military annalists are smarter than you and they know better.

I'm not saying Tank vs Tank battle never happened in 2003 they did but overall they were rare and their were no large Tank vs Tank battles despite the fact that Iraq had far more Tanks than the U.S. did in 2003 and it was usually IFV that were leading the way with the Abrams behind them.

If you had studied 2003 Iraq war you would know this but clearly you don't and you haven't!

Israeli's thought like you do now in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon and we all know what that got them! US military annalists are much smarter and they didn't let a simple fact that the Abrams is superior to the T-72 fool them into a mistake! And they invaded a country that had far more tanks in a matter of weeks and they did so without having large Tank vs Tank battles and that is a fact you can take to the bank!

 

[Oldman1]

It doesn't matter what you would do! What the U.S. did in 2003 speaks for it's self!
On the ground the MOST powerful country in the WORLD 1st sent Special Forces armed with ATGM's and after that it was IFV again armed with ATGM's and only after that it was the Abrams.

US didn't send Abrams tanks up front to take out Iraqi tanks because US military annalists are smarter than you and they know better.

I'm not saying Tank vs Tank battle never happened in 2003 they did but overall they were rare and their were no large Tank vs Tank battles despite the fact that Iraq had far more Tanks than the U.S. did in 2003 and it was usually IFV that were leading the way with the Abrams behind them.

If you had studied 2003 Iraq war you would know this but clearly you don't and you haven't!

Israeli's thought like you do now in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon and we all know what that got them! US military annalists are much smarter and they didn't let a simple fact that the Abrams is superior to the T-72 fool them into a mistake! And they invaded a country that had far more tanks in a matter of weeks and they did so without having large Tank vs Tank battles and that is a fact you can take to the bank!

Boy you never heard of Thunderrun to Baghdad where they sent mechanized units with Abram to the front and Bradleys to the back. NOT Bradleys to the front!

 

[Draco.IMF]

 

[VEVAK]

Boy you never heard of Thunderrun to Baghdad where they sent mechanized units with Abram to the front and Bradleys to the back. NOT Bradleys to the front!

And yet US IFV have more kills than the Abrams! Don't fool yourself with fiction!

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

And yet US IFV have more kills than the Abrams! Don't fool yourself with fiction!

Where do you get the claim that U.S IFVs had more Tank kills than MBTs?