Vietnam Defence Forum

[Carlosa]

I see no problem with these old boys. VN is not an ideal battlefield for tanks, especially the VN-China border area. Also morden anti-tank weapons platforms are much more advanced and cheaper than tanks. VN tanks should only be used as infantry support, not spear head of a charge or attack (of course it depends on the situation).

That's exactly how VN uses the T-54 / 55, for infantry support. They are not meant to go head on against modern MBTs, for that VN will use T-72 (eventually upgraded to T-72B3 standard) and T-90.

 

[xesy]

That's exactly how VN uses the T-54 / 55, for infantry support. They are not meant to go head on against modern MBTs, for that VN will use T-72 (eventually upgraded to T-72B3 standard) and T-90.

I don't think VN have enough T-72s (if we have any at all, as I haven't seen any pics of it in VN, but well, maybe they are classified) for a conventional war, and T-90 is still a question. Also, T-54/55 required 5 soldiers to operate (maybe 4 if upgraded) and we have quite a lot of them lying around already. Tanks are no longer kings of the battlefield so why invest more money on them? I am not against upgrading them but buying new pieces, I prefered a different option.

 

[Carlosa]

I don't think VN have enough T-72s (if we have any at all, as I haven't seen any pics of it in VN, but well, maybe they are classified) for a conventional war, and T-90 is still a question. Also, T-54/55 required 5 soldiers to operate (maybe 4 if upgraded) and we have quite a lot of them lying around already. Tanks are no longer kings of the battlefield so why invest more money on them? I am not against upgrading them but buying new pieces, I prefered a different option.

480 T-72s according to Russian sources since VN asked them to upgrade them, but forget about finding pictures. There are different stories about the T-90, but its either in VN already or coming soon, I believe VN already have a number, but its impossible to prove of course.

A T-54 / 55 is just being used as a IFV on steroids and that's ok, its very useful that way, and with a fire control system it will be able to fire accurately while on the move, so its a worthwhile upgrade.
Sure, they are vulnerable, but they do provide heavy firepower while on the move and only a tank can give you that.

 

[Viet]

I see no problem with these old boys. VN is not an ideal battlefield for tanks, especially the VN-China border area. Also morden anti-tank weapons platforms are much more advanced and cheaper than tanks. VN tanks should only be used as infantry support, not spear head of a charge or attack (of course it depends on the situation).

Tanks as infantry support is an outdated tactic of WW 1. We need modern tanks to break through Chinese defence lines. For counter strikes. For offensives, encircling their armies in southern China. Without credible deterrence, Chinese think they can come and rape our people without impunity.

 

[William Hung]

I see no problem with these old boys. VN is not an ideal battlefield for tanks, especially the VN-China border area. Also morden anti-tank weapons platforms are much more advanced and cheaper than tanks. VN tanks should only be used as infantry support, not spear head of a charge or attack (of course it depends on the situation).

This is why we hope our limited money won’t be spent on upgrading these old tanks with expensive foreign contracters.

 

[Aqsuperman]

a rough scheme of 1 PT-76 and 1 M1113 in a new transport boat , mass produce these ships and we can quickly provide heavy firepower to our landing troops

 

[xesy]

Tanks as infantry support is an outdated tactic of WW 1. We need modern tanks to break through Chinese defence lines. For counter strikes. For offensives, encircling their armies in southern China. Without credible deterrence, Chinese think they can come and rape our people without impunity.

I think both grand tank battles and mechanize spear head tatics are actually outdated. In fact tank itself has become a less effective weapon on the modern battlefied (i.e urban area, jungle or mountain terrains). With a few breakthroughs here and there, I believe a new platform will appear to replace tank, and it certainly won't be called tank.

This is why we hope our limited money won’t be spent on upgrading these old tanks with expensive foreign contracters.

Too expensive to buy new pieces, too ineffective to leave those old tanks to rust. The brass gotta find a way to spend those tax money.

 

[Viet]

I think both grand tank battles and mechanize spear head tatics are actually outdated. In fact tank itself has become a less effective weapon on the modern battlefied (i.e urban area, jungle or mountain terrains). With a few breakthroughs here and there, I believe a new platform will appear to replace tank, and it certainly won't be called tank.


Too expensive to buy new pieces, too ineffective to leave those old tanks to rust. The brass gotta find a way to spend those tax money.

I don´t think so. In terms of speed, firepower, armor, survivability and thrust, no weapon system on the ground comes close to tank. sure, for instance howitzer has more firepower, but it lacks of other factors. the combination of all factors makes tank to the KING on the ground. if not, why do major tank manufactures develop new generations of tanks? China, Russia, now followed by Germany and France. as the latter fear the new russian battle tank armatar. During the cold war, it was the soviet tank armies of 10,000 tanks stationed on the eastern front that made the NATO sleepless.

Nachfolger für "Leopard 2" : Bundeswehr soll neue Panzer bekommen | tagesschau.de

never underestimate the firepower and speed of a tank army when they operate in mass. during the WW 1, the moment when the british and french tanks broke through the german defence lines on the western front, the war was lost for the germans. the german military leadership failed to recognise the importance of the new weapon on the battlefield. Similar during the height of WW 2, when the Soviet tanks broke the spine of the german tank armies in the battle of Kursk. after the near defeat, the germans withdrew piece by piece until the final unconditional surrender in 1945.

Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

with the times going by, we will see modern infrastructures in Vietnam and China: roads, bridges, trains and highways. not much with jungles and difficult terrains in old day, when you can say they are natural defence. modern tanks can even survive a nuclear strike.

 

[Aqsuperman]

uh........Technically no tank in the world can remain active after a nuclear strike , the crew will be perished by the shockwave , the tank do have the capability to operate in the NBC situation though , the tank itself can be used even after the shockwave but with a new crew and you can say goodbye to all the complex electrical system . In this time of day , the man-portable anti-tank weapons have advanced to the point that with a squad of infantry you can make short work of a mechanized column , WW1 and WW2 and even the Cold War , anti tank weapon at those time largely require big and cumbersome anti-tank gun , The Cold War improved a bit but the warhead and penetration level is still primitive and low , but nowaday , tank can be pretty easy to take out if without proper infantry and IFV cover ................so now i think we need something that have the firepower of a tank but much faster and more manouverable , like B1 Centauro , BMP-3 , M1128 .

 

[Carlosa]

I think both grand tank battles and mechanize spear head tatics are actually outdated. In fact tank itself has become a less effective weapon on the modern battlefied (i.e urban area, jungle or mountain terrains). With a few breakthroughs here and there, I believe a new platform will appear to replace tank, and it certainly won't be called tank.


Too expensive to buy new pieces, too ineffective to leave those old tanks to rust. The brass gotta find a way to spend those tax money.

Not really, at least not with the present anti tank weapon systems.

Anti tank weapons get better, then the tanks get better protection.
Try to perforate the armor of a T-90, even when a T-90 shoots at point blank against another T-90, it can't penetrate the armor, so how are you going to defeat that tank? Not easy, air launched weapons probably, top hitting missiles maybe or lucky shots.

How about when a tank uses active defense, how do you hit that tank?
The latest Merkava has active defense and in the last Gaza war, 1 tank defeated 7 antitank missiles, so how do you destroy tanks like that?

Active defense keeps getting better by the way. Second / third generation active defense will even be able to intercept a high speed shell from another tank. Good luck trying to defeat tanks like that.

The reality is that the tank continues to be the king of the battlefield, but that only applies to modern MBTs.

Did any country ditch its tanks? NO, that tell you something.

What @Viet said before about tanks used as infantry support being outdated is correct but only applies to modern MBTs. For older tanks such as T-54 / 55, the correct role is as infantry support (like an IFV), so what the Vietnamese army is doing with them is correct and makes sense to upgrade them (cheap local upgrade).

uh........Technically no tank in the world can remain active after a nuclear strike , the crew will be perished by the shockwave , the tank do have the capability to operate in the NBC situation though , the tank itself can be used even after the shockwave but with a new crew and you can say goodbye to all the complex electrical system . In this time of day , the man-portable anti-tank weapons have advanced to the point that with a squad of infantry you can make short work of a mechanized column , WW1 and WW2 and even the Cold War , anti tank weapon at those time largely require big and cumbersome anti-tank gun , The Cold War improved a bit but the warhead and penetration level is still primitive and low , but nowaday , tank can be pretty easy to take out if without proper infantry and IFV cover ................so now i think we need something that have the firepower of a tank but much faster and more manouverable , like B1 Centauro , BMP-3 , M1128 .

You tell me in detail how you can easily take out a modern tank like T-90 (not even talk about Armata) that has active defense.

so now i think we need something that have the firepower of a tank but much faster and more manouverable , like B1 Centauro , BMP-3 , M1128 .

Those IFV vehicles that you like such as like B1 Centauro , BMP-3 , M1128 are actually the ones that are very easy to take out (unless they have active protection as the US is starting to do with the striker).

For an IFV you do need to be light and mobile (and vulnerable), that's just part of the job, but if you want the heavy firepower on the move and difficult to defeat, only a modern MBT can give you that.

 

[xesy]

Not really, at least not with the present anti tank weapon systems.

Anti tank weapons get better, then the tanks get better protection.
Try to perforate the armor of a T-90, even when a T-90 shoots at point blank against another T-90, it can't penetrate the armor, so how are you going to defeat that tank? Not easy, air launched weapons probably or lucky shots.

How about when a tank uses active defense, how do you hit that tank?
The latest Merkava has active defense and in the last Gaza war, 1 tank defeated 7 antitank missiles, so how do you destroy tanks like that?

Active defense keeps getting better by the way.

The reality is that the tank continues to be the king of the battlefield, but that only applies to modern MBTs.

Did any country ditched its tanks? NO, that tell you something.

What @Viet said before about tanks used as infantry support being outdated is correct but only applies to modern MBTs. For older tanks such as T-54 / 55, the correct role is as infantry support (like an IFV), so what the Vietnamese army is doing with them is correct and makes sense to upgrade them (cheap local upgrade).



You tell me in detail how you can easily take out a modern tank like T-90 (not even talk about Armata) that has active defense.



Those IFV vehicles that you like such as like B1 Centauro , BMP-3 , M1128 are actually the ones that are very easy to take out (unless they have active protection as the US is starting to do with the striker).

For an IFV you do need to be light (and vulnerable), that's just part of the job, but if you want the heavy firepower on the move and difficult to defeat, only a modern MBT can give you that.

The thing is after WW2 there was hardly any true "tank battle". There were always 1 side with tank and 1 side without and tanks hardly directly confronted with each other (in large scale). Don't even mention Operation Desert Storm because Iraqi tanks didn't even have a chance to attack US tanks before US A-10s made short work of them. Also since WW2, people have invented way too many weapons and tatics to make tank not so invincible anymore: anti-tank mines, IEDs, rockets, helicopter, artillery rounds, bombs... Sure the armor might better, but it never really catch up with the weapons. Also with proper tatics, people can still make use of old weapons to destroy or disable tanks. For example, Russian T-90s were destroyed by Gruzians when they ganged up and fired 10-12 rounds of RPG-7 or RPG-12 on the top or the back (plausible for urban warfare). And those are weapons half century old. With things like AT-4 or Javelin or RPG-29, I believe tank look more like a metal box waiting to be blow up. Because its armor has to protect many area, while anti-tank only need an entry to make the tank go boom.

 

[Carlosa]

The thing is after WW2 there was hardly any true "tank battle". There were always 1 side with tank and 1 side without and tanks hardly directly confronted with each other (in large scale). Don't even mention Operation Desert Storm because Iraqi tanks didn't even have a chance to attack US tanks before US A-10s made short work of them. Also since WW2, people have invented way too many weapons and tatics to make tank not so invincible anymore: anti-tank mines, IEDs, rockets, helicopter, artillery rounds, bombs... Sure the armor might better, but it never really catch up with the weapons. Also with proper tatics, people can still make use of old weapons to destroy or disable tanks. For example, Russian T-90s were destroyed by Gruzians when they ganged up and fired 10-12 rounds of RPG-7 or RPG-12 on the top or the back (plausible for urban warfare). And those are weapons half century old. With things like AT-4 or Javelin or RPG-29, I believe tank look more like a metal box waiting to be blow up. Because its armor has to protect many area, while anti-tank only need an entry to make the tank go boom.

I understand your points and yes, there are some ways to stop a tank such as IEDs, etc, and that's mostly in very specific environments, but everything depends on how well protected the tank is; the point that you are not addressing is modern MBTs with active defense, how do you stop tanks like that? No missiles will work in a situation like that, it does not matter if the missiles are from the ground or air or if they try to hit the top of the tank, it will not work because those missiles will get intercepted before they reach the tank and they can come from any angle, it does not matter.

You can find many examples from the past, but those do not include tanks with active defense; the only case of tanks with active defense used in actual combat was in the last Gaza war and even that Hamas had many resources for anti tank defense, they could not hit a single Israeli tank. That's hardly a metal box waiting to be blown up.

That's my point. Against the latest tanks with active defense, its very difficult to defeat them. The chinese have tanks with active defense, also the Russians, Israelis; the Indians are developing their own system also, that's the way to go. Its cost effective to invest in a $300.00 to 600.000 active defense system for a tank that is at least 4.5 million usd.

If you are talking about older tanks, particularly without active defense, that's another story. Again, none of the major powers are abandoning MBTs, they just keep improving them. Until small, powerful lasers come along, I still see the tank as the king of the battlefield.

 

[Aqsuperman]

No matter what type of active defence , with a proper ambush , anything can be destroyed , as i said "without proper infantry and IFV cover" , not need for too long , 5 seconds of carelessness and there goes a tank , for a small example , during Operation Protective Edge , the Israeli fielding Merkava MK 4 with Trophy system , at first it can easily destroy incoming firepower from few and dis-organized RPG-29 and AT-14 Hamas anti tank team , even destroy some team entirely , but in later part of the operation , Hamas anti tank team start to set up better arc of fire , hitting Merkava from multiple direction and in high angle , in the end : while no Israeli tank crew got killed , atleast 5 Merkava got immobolized , and that what happen when you put too much hope in active defence . In rough and cramped terrain , its the mobility that going to save you , not the armor , tanks in these terrain act as fire-support , not the vanguard , the lead should always be the IFV and infantry with tank on the back , the enemy wont hit you in just 2 , 4 or 6 rockets , they will hit you with pretty much the same number as their man , which can easily reach 20 troops per tanti tank team , with mobile tandern war head like RPG-30 , can you guarantee a tank survival in that scenario ? and what is the better target than the big butt tank that when destroyed will block the enemy advane ? the M1128 , BMP-3 and B1 Centauro have the tank firepower yet they can move around easier , with good protection from friendly element , they can do just as good , if not better , a tank

 

[xesy]

I understand your points and yes, there are some ways to stop a tank such as IEDs, etc, and that's mostly in very specific environments, but everything depends on how well protected the tank is; the point that you are not addressing is modern MBTs with active defense, how do you stop tanks like that? No missiles will work in a situation like that, it does not matter if the missiles are from the ground or air or if they try to hit the top of the tank, it will not work because those missiles will get intercepted before they reach the tank and they can come from any angle, it does not matter.

You can find many examples from the past, but those do not include tanks with active defense; the only case of tanks with active defense used in actual combat was in the last Gaza war and even that Hamas had many resources for anti tank defense, they could not hit a single Israeli tank. That's hardly a metal box waiting to be blown up.

That's my point. Against the latest tanks with active defense, its very difficult to defeat them. The chinese have tanks with active defense, also the Russians, Israelis; the Indians are developing their own system also, that's the way to go. Its cost effective to invest in a $300.00 to 600.000 active defense system for a tank that is at least 4.5 million usd.

If you are talking about older tanks, particularly without active defense, that's another story. Again, none of the major powers are abandoning MBTs, they just keep improving them. Until small, powerful lasers come along, I still see the tank as the king of the battlefield.

True like you said active defense system cut down the number of destroyed tanks, yet there are already anti-active defense systems weapon around (for example kinetic sub-sonic round, which is basically a tungsen rod fired with lower than sound speed). Like I said, human has developed too many methods to kill each others yet too few to protect themselves. Most of the time it's "using spear to deflect spear", like those active defense systems. And one second of careless or malfunction can cost the lives of the whole crew.

 

[Carlosa]

No matter what type of active defence , with a proper ambush , anything can be destroyed , as i said "without proper infantry and IFV cover" , not need for too long , 5 seconds of carelessness and there goes a tank , for a small example , during Operation Protective Edge , the Israeli fielding Merkava MK 4 with Trophy system , at first it can easily destroy incoming firepower from few and dis-organized RPG-29 and AT-14 Hamas anti tank team , even destroy some team entirely , but in later part of the operation , Hamas anti tank team start to set up better arc of fire , hitting Merkava from multiple direction and in high angle , in the end : while no Israeli tank crew got killed , atleast 5 Merkava got immobolized , and that what happen when you put too much hope in active defence . In rough and cramped terrain , its the mobility that going to save you , not the armor , tanks in these terrain act as fire-support , not the vanguard , the lead should always be the IFV and infantry with tank on the back , the enemy wont hit you in just 2 , 4 or 6 rockets , they will hit you with pretty much the same number as their man , which can easily reach 20 troops per tanti tank team , with mobile tandern war head like RPG-30 , can you guarantee a tank survival in that scenario ? and what is the better target than the big butt tank that when destroyed will block the enemy advane ? the M1128 , BMP-3 and B1 Centauro have the tank firepower yet they can move around easier , with good protection from friendly element , they can do just as good , if not better , a tank

I don't know where you got your information about the Gaza war, but no tank was damage even that they were under intense anti tank fire and Hamas had prepared many anti tank ambushes and the terrain was favorable to anti tank warfare. That war proves my point. Read the references below:

Operation Protective Edge 2014
Merkava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No tanks were damaged during Operation Protective Edge. The Merkava Mk. IVm tanks, fitted with the Trophy Active Protection system, intercepted anti-tank missiles and RPGs on dozens of different occasions during the ground operation.[46] During the operation, the system intercepted anti-tank weapons, primarily Kornets, as well as Metis and RPG-29.[47] By identifying the source of fire, Trophy also allowed tanks to kill the Hamas anti-tank team on one occasion.[48]

Giora Katz, head of Rafael's land division, stated that it was a "breakthrough because it is the first time in military history where an active defense system has proven itself in intense fighting."[49]

401st Brigade (equipped with Merkava Mk. IVm tanks) alone killed between 120-130 Hamas militants during the ground fighting phase of Operation Protective Edge, according to the IDF.[50]
----------------
Anti-Tank Actions (Gaza war 2014) The Combat Performance of Hamas in the Gaza War of 2014 | Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
A second key category of Hamas ground action consisted of attacks on Israeli armored vehicles, including tanks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and armored engineering vehicles. Hamas had specialized anti-tank units equipped with a variety of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and RPGs. ATGMs reportedly included the Malyutka, Konkurs, Fagot, and Kornet types.[52] RPGs included the RPG-7 and the modern and capable RPG-29.[53] Hamas attempted to engage IDF armor with ATGMs at long range, and with anti-tank teams in close combat.[54] Hamas also used IEDs and mines against IDF armor, and attempted to draw the IDF into prepared “ambushes” where all anti-tank means could be brought to bear.[55]

Hamas was less effective with these tactics. Not a single IDF tank was confirmed destroyed, nor were any Namer heavy APCs lost in combat. Other armored vehicles appeared more vulnerable, including the aging M113 APC, in which seven Israeli troops were killed in an RPG blast.[56] Armored corps personnel were killed and wounded by sniping and mortar fire, but by and large Hamas anti-tank weapons and tactics were not of great effect.[57] This was due to the Trophy anti-ATGM system employed on Merkava Mk 4 tanks,[58] the protection provided by Merkava tanks and Namer APCs,[59] and probably Israeli tactics that employed heavy firepower against ATGM threats.
--------------

Sure you can find specific circumstances of ganging up on a tank, hitting them from many angles, multiple hits at the same time, etc, but come on, those are special circumstances, how often are you going to trap a tank in a situation like that? Sure a tank can only intercept so many missiles at the same time and it will also run out of ammo at some point, but those are not valid reasons to deny the importance of a tank, you can use arguments like that against anything.

At the end of the day, you can't really defeat a tank formation of modern MBTs with active protection systems in a typical warfare situation, you can only give me very special circumstances that only apply to very limited situations and that's not realistic.