Post WW2 Period (1945 - 1960) Era of MBT
Still, having recognized the importance of Armoured column during WW2, the only country's unhurt from WW2 - The America have now pick up the pieces from Germany and started to develop their own doctrine.
Studying their mistake, they have concluded that an combines arms operation of armoured warfare have to be mutually supported by Infantry, Artillery and Air Power. Where the Air Power take out Air/Armoured threat, Artillery soften up enemy Infantry resistance and Infantry provide local security.
The important finding, however, is that, even though you need to have all 3 items inter support each other to work, they have to put separately and cannot belong to the same core. Otherwise, you would not be able to defend all 3 at the same time, instead of using one to fend for another. So, realising that although accepted the unified Armoured design, the US Military have handed control of the 3 item into 3 separate branches.
With the world more or less bought the Doctrine used by German Wehrmacht during WW2, with their own little modification. The classification has now become more clear than Tanks, should be a stand alone branch of an Army, with the consideration to use them effectively against objective alone when you need to, but also have to be able to support and most importantly, BE SUPPORTED by infantry or other element. Hence the Main Battle Tank concept was born.
MBT concept is basically put it, to use a rubber band and bunch all the tank used in WW2 together. During the war, country class their tank with different category because they have a certain advantage or featurette offer, light tanks offer speed and manoeuvrability, heavy tank offer firepower and Medium tank and Tank destroyer offer flexibility. Basically speaking MBT is a tank that mould all 3 feature into one. A tank that have respectable speed, firepower and adaptability.
And with them, comes another rise of Armoured Vehicle. The Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC). and also SP Gun.
While APC was not anything new by the time we reach the cold war, the development is not mature if one have to put a word for it. The need for APC back then is solely to transport infantry from A to B with armoured protection from Small arms fire, its usage would not be combine or relate to the tank, however, what WW2 show us was, with the fast approach battle, it would worth nothing if you have nothing in place to capitalise the gain from the initial armoured thrust, hence now country start factoring in infantry into armoured doctrine equation.
Infantry was very useful in armoured warfare, from acting as a scout to protecting the tank from blind spot and also used to hold ground after the armoured have rooted the defender. But it would mean nothing if you cannot have a tank there without infantry, in the old day, what people do is to put infantry on top of a tank, which is very exposed but the quickest way to deploy infantry support that way. So, what if you can have a APC that travel just as fast as the MBT?
Another thing was badly needed for an armoured operation is tube artillery. That would be needed to soften up the enemy defence before you roll your tank in. However, the old way means you can only put a howitzer on the back of a truck and tow them to preselected location. What if you can move the artillery alongside with your tank? The Answer is SP gun.
So in 1960s, we can see a burst of grouped AFV for example, in the US, the M60 Patton tank would be accompanied by M113 APC and M109 SP Howitzer
Case Studies 2 : Israel Defence Force
It wasn't even an open secret that Israel look up to the German during WW2 to their own Armoured Unit, with it's numerous war for a relative short timespan. There are probably not enough time to develop their own doctrine and the only thing the Israeli can really do is to copy others. And no one actually better than the German when they do it.
So, when you copy a doctrine, you inherit the good, the bad and the unknown. It would be for the country that copy the doctrine to fine tune it.
What the Israeli situation is, they have less strategic depth, hence their troop position have to be perfect as you do not have a long stretch of land to fall back on.
So, effectively, when there are not much land to defend, you need to start thinking about the X factor, and by crook or by rook, they too found the answer with Germany doctrine during WW2, the answer is, Air Power.
Seeing that Stuka can slice thru any tank formation with ease, they do develop their doctrine mould over the Germans, what they do is, they shift the focus to airstrike, then roll along the tanks when they have full cover.
This is what the Israeli do during the 6 days war in 1967.
Realising a combine Arab attack is imminent, what the Israeli do is simply extend their strategic depth by eliminate the enemy up in the air. As air power can reach enemy far beyond. They essentially make rooms in front lines before they engage the enemy. A pretty smart move as that will create a buffer zone, a sort of reverse strategic depth.
But as with the German, due to their success in 1967, they have relied on this type of doctrine for their main stay. But as with what the German encountered in Russia, the Israeli hit wall as well, this time 6 years later at Yom Kippur war.
What Egypt do is simply studied how the Israeli conduct their operation, so that they can find a way to counter that and bet on the Israeli would follow up on their success in 1967 and did not change anything.
What they find is that if they can eliminate the Israeli Air Power and bogged down the Israeli tank advance (Sound familiar?) Then they can stop the Israeli momentum and can defeat the Israeli in detail, even tho the Israeli now occupied more land.
The first thing they do, is to ask the Soviet for more SAM. Then they would require ATGM from Soviet too, so they give the normal infantry power to deal with Israeli Tanks.
And when 1973 came, the Egyptian is ready.
What we can see during Yom Kippur war is simple, the Israel is replicating the mistake made by Wehrmacht during WW2, but this time they have less ground to play on, and they have to disperse further out than the German as they have less man to cover the ground.
What the Egyptian did was, they invaded and wait for the Israeli Fighter to come, then they are to challenge them by SAM and simply just lies and wait for the Israeli counter attack.
And before you know it, they came and yes, they were entering a prepared position and got cut to pieces. Problem is there are no other way beside a Fighter swept to support the armoured attack.
The situation, however, is not as dire as Germany back in WW2, simply because this time around, Israeli is defending, and Germany was attacking back then. basically, when you are defending, there is one thing you can always do, and that's wait. You don't need to attack when you are defending, simply because they are coming at you, and if they do, they will need to move out from their defensive position.
If Yom Kippur War is an offensive war, then I will probably called Israel lost from then on, but the truth is, they are defending, so they do the one thing they can do, and the only thing that save them. That's wait
Wait buys times for Israeli, and there are no reason for Israeli to attack unless the Egypt move out of their defensive position and this is their job to attack, so waiting in the Western front buys time for Israeli to mobilise and regroup, the most important of all, to have time to mark and conduct SEAD operation that have been protected the Egyptian Armoured line, and also give time to deal with the Eastern Threat.
So, the Syrian, they also manage to adopt the doctrine the Egypt use, but in a much smaller scale, instead of 5 Division of more than 40000 men with 2000 tanks, they opt with 3 division, 28,000 men and a modest 800 tanks. Again covered with AA and SAM with infantry equip with Anti-tank Missile. But 2 things swing the momentum toward Israel.
1.) After the surprising fail attempt to counter attack the Egyptian, the Israeli wasn't even tried to counter attack, instead, they opt to fight a delay action, buying time to mobilise reserve.
2.) The Hill area (Golan Height) means exceptional hazard for Syrian Armour and Infantry, attack, as the pass only allow dual or sometime single file movement, a perfect sight for Israeli to lay ambush.
So, without covering the whole 3 months of war, and skip to the result, Israeli successfully delay the Syrian long enough to mobilise their reserve and repel the attack, what's more, the Israeli counter attacked and penetrate as deep as artillery range within Damascus, the Syrian Capital. And that's the turning point of the whole war.
Now, Syrian request the Egyptian not to sit on their asses and do something to relieve the pressure from the West, so the Israeli would have to refocus on the Western Front, instead of majoring a thrust into Syrian heartland.
A request which the Egyptian listen, and that was relatively the biggest mistake the Egyptian made during the whole war. In short, they ran out of their SAM/AA protective umbrella and got cut to ribbon.
The war ends with Israel counter attacked both Syrian in Golan height and in Sinai.
Post Vietnam War : (1975 - present) The new addition to Air Power.
I skipped the Vietnam War era as the Vietnam war does not see any improvement to armoured warfare itself, in fact Tanks and APC uses are according to local requirement, not really much have changed since WW2. But the one single fact that change the face of Armoured Warfare comes after Vietnam war. And that's Helicopter Gunship
Vietnam war also known as the first helicopter war, where infantry were brought to theatre via helicopter, this way, they can be quickly deploy to virtually anywhere in the battlefield. However, while Helicopter can support the infantry on the way in, the Army also notice that they can provide information to Tanks and support their movement. Hence the first Gunship was born. The AH-1 Cobra gunship.
Gunship can be act in 2 ways, they either act as a scout, or act as a hit-and-run medium. Where they can take out the spearhead of an enemy armoured column before they know what hit them.
US military, realising this during Vietnam War, have adopted or melted the Gunship into the armoured doctrine. First of all, by adding gunship, you can see further then with just pure infantry scout or armoured scout. Secondly, as you can see further, you have more time to formulate your plan, and you can take out important target before they sees you.
Where the US Air Force would attempt to establish global air dominance on any battlefield, therefore the Helicopter can be use in the front line, without any prejudice. Then after they have scouted the battlefield ahead, establish battlefield control and interdict the battlefield, the tank will then roll in and engage the remaining armoured and finally sealed the line with follow on infantry.
On the other side of the world, the Soviet Union/Russia have a different philosophy, not expecting to win Air Dominance, Russia, on the other hand see Helicopter Gunship as what they are, a weapon platform. The Soviet Doctrine remain largely unchanged and adopted by the Russian, where different type of tank would work in a different form in battle, the more numerous (T-72) would act as a domino and would swoop thru enemy frontline then you mixed with less abundant but highly advanced tank (T-90) to act as battle command and control and interdiction platform. It is a left over of WW2 German Doctrine with Tiger leading 3 or 4 Panzer IV tank in a unit. Complete with fast moving infantry and Helicopter gunship as missile truck, and artillery that positioned a bit behind the tanks line.
Conclusion
There are no "Sure-Fire" way to win a war, you fight with what you have and you fight with what you train to do. Sometime, when things did not go your way, it's not the equipment at hand that will save you, nor would it be the superior tactics, but it was the human brains.
We saw how Armoured Vehicle design and their use have change over each war, and from each war, we have a clearer picture on how we want to use our stuff, but not every time it would be enough just to follow rules and procedure, and when that time came, you need to fall back to your brain and use your knowledge of battlefield to turn the tide, that how you change a doctrine.
Many military strategic think it's the doctrine change the war, but what I think is the war is what change the doctrine, not the other way around.
I hope you enjoy reading this article
@me_itsme
@truthseeker2010
@Neptune
@Slav Defence
@jaibi
@AUSTERLITZ
@TankMan
@Gufi
@Manticore
@Oscar
@Side-Winder
@DESERT FIGHTER
@levina
@SvenSvensonov
@Nihonjin1051
@KAL-EL
@RescueRanger
@F-22Raptor
@third eye
@scorpionx
@hinduguy
@قناص
@Horus
@WebMaster
@AMCA
@Mugwop
lol we covered different aspect of the doctrineI read your article before writing mine ^_^
