Yes. Even if your tanks are outdated pieces of shit, you're still forcing the enemy to tote around anti-tank weapons which is another logistical burden. And if they have no AT, they're fricked.
you wanna run into no man's land and get cut to shreds by the arty, by the machine guns, the line of guys in the other trench, or the CAS if its available?
you can put diesel into jerry cans and find short guys to fix and operate the tanks
>But the logistical burden of shit tanks is much greater than that of lugging AT-weapons.
Tanks are not solely for destroying other vehicles like an AT weapon.
yes, but shit tanks do that very poorly casting doubt on the ROI, and the argument was that it's a win because you force the other side to waste resources, ignoring the fact that you're the loser in that equation since the counter is substantially less resource intensive than the threat.
ATGM's are not a counter to tanks. They're really only effective against tanks on the defensive. Even when used in an offensive role they are tactically employed defensively (think moving into position and defending against enemy counter attacks).
ATGM's are a counter to tanks as much as SAM's are a counter to aircraft. They're not. At best they deny the enemy air superiority but they can not achieve it by themselves. Likewise with ATGM's, they can destroy enemy tanks but they don't provide the firepower, mobility and protection of the tank.
tank has many general offensive uses (destroying strongpoints/tanks/vehicles providing cover and transportation for infantry etc) you generally concentrate them in one place to overwhelm enemy defence
while most AT weapons are just that - weapons that destroy tanks and there is very limited benefit otherwise - you just carry additional weight on your back that you wil probably never use... and if there are more armored vehicles than AT weapons in vicinity you are in bad spot anyway - tank will literally roll over you and you wont be able to do anything
it's still a big ass gun running on treads. protection might be shit, but the firepower is still undeniable so long as you only pick the engagement where you overmatch your foes.
Yeah but without fuel or cover you can't be around them. They are useful if it's a quick assault or defense but are death traps during the day going slow
Only if you've got a surplus of logistical power that means you can spend the time and money moving them around and keeping them supplied without it cutting into your more effective capabilities, and only if the shit tanks are free.
It was designed and built at a time when armor was unable to keep up with missiles and heat rounds so they prioritized speed and firepower over armor since getting hit meant you die no matter how thick your armor is.
It was designed and built at a time when armor was unable to keep up with missiles and heat rounds so they prioritized speed and firepower over armor since getting hit meant you die no matter how thick your armor is.
anon says, the peak armor technology was steel at angles and peak weapons technology was HEAT. In the early 1960s with even the first RPG-7 warhead (PG-7V) had no problem going through pretty much any non-heavy tank with 260mm RHA of penetration.
Leopard 1 hull front with 70mm of steel at 60 degrees is 140mm effective armor. APDS of that time (APFSDS came in mid 60s) could penetrate around 120mm at 900m, for which Leopard 1 armor was adequate. For modern autocannons the armor on base Leopard 1 should be adequate as well, but even better with some of the upgrades.
Yes. Even if your tanks are outdated pieces of shit, you're still forcing the enemy to tote around anti-tank weapons which is another logistical burden. And if they have no AT, they're fricked.
What about fuel and maintenance?
you wanna run into no man's land and get cut to shreds by the arty, by the machine guns, the line of guys in the other trench, or the CAS if its available?
you can put diesel into jerry cans and find short guys to fix and operate the tanks
But the logistical burden of shit tanks is much greater than that of lugging AT-weapons.
>But the logistical burden of shit tanks is much greater than that of lugging AT-weapons.
Tanks are not solely for destroying other vehicles like an AT weapon.
yes, but shit tanks do that very poorly casting doubt on the ROI, and the argument was that it's a win because you force the other side to waste resources, ignoring the fact that you're the loser in that equation since the counter is substantially less resource intensive than the threat.
ATGM's are not a counter to tanks. They're really only effective against tanks on the defensive. Even when used in an offensive role they are tactically employed defensively (think moving into position and defending against enemy counter attacks).
ATGM's are a counter to tanks as much as SAM's are a counter to aircraft. They're not. At best they deny the enemy air superiority but they can not achieve it by themselves. Likewise with ATGM's, they can destroy enemy tanks but they don't provide the firepower, mobility and protection of the tank.
tank has many general offensive uses (destroying strongpoints/tanks/vehicles providing cover and transportation for infantry etc) you generally concentrate them in one place to overwhelm enemy defence
while most AT weapons are just that - weapons that destroy tanks and there is very limited benefit otherwise - you just carry additional weight on your back that you wil probably never use... and if there are more armored vehicles than AT weapons in vicinity you are in bad spot anyway - tank will literally roll over you and you wont be able to do anything
but theres a threshold to that burden.
like if your tanks were ww1 era then its sort of pointless.
Even a Renault-FT will win against an M113.
>tank with paper armor and WW1 optics will certainly beat an APC armed with a 50 cal
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
only if you can contrive a movie-tier situation where that is possible.
and i doubt the crew are a team of scrappy underdogs, and even so.
A Renault FT is so painfully slow that it likely won't.
A Renault FT showing up in one of those Russian trench videos would be kind of a headache to deal with.
Yes but this you posted it ain't shit. Maybe average
It's old, and it's up to par with the t90, and the t90 is utterly dog water.
Good IFVs are better than shit tanks with a lower logistical burden and more flexibility
it's still a big ass gun running on treads. protection might be shit, but the firepower is still undeniable so long as you only pick the engagement where you overmatch your foes.
Yeah but without fuel or cover you can't be around them. They are useful if it's a quick assault or defense but are death traps during the day going slow
Only if you've got a surplus of logistical power that means you can spend the time and money moving them around and keeping them supplied without it cutting into your more effective capabilities, and only if the shit tanks are free.
yes because if anything it is still a moving machinegun nest.
>70mm front armor
Why this APC called a tank?
It was designed and built at a time when armor was unable to keep up with missiles and heat rounds so they prioritized speed and firepower over armor since getting hit meant you die no matter how thick your armor is.
Leopard 1 is late 1950s technology, like
anon says, the peak armor technology was steel at angles and peak weapons technology was HEAT. In the early 1960s with even the first RPG-7 warhead (PG-7V) had no problem going through pretty much any non-heavy tank with 260mm RHA of penetration.
Leopard 1 hull front with 70mm of steel at 60 degrees is 140mm effective armor. APDS of that time (APFSDS came in mid 60s) could penetrate around 120mm at 900m, for which Leopard 1 armor was adequate. For modern autocannons the armor on base Leopard 1 should be adequate as well, but even better with some of the upgrades.
No.
Sticking your tankers in a technical would unironically be better than sticking them in a Leopard 1.