Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

[paulobrito]

 

[Agent23]

Seriously, what insane colonial conflict was this from?

 

[paulobrito]

Seriously, what insane colonial conflict was this from?

I think Vietnam.

 

[Captain X]

Can't really blame them for wanting to get out of that sun.

 

[Agent23]

I always assumed that tanks had some form of cooling, I mean, armored warfare was a thing in North Africa during WWII.

In any case, that umbrella is probably loved by any tank hunters and artillery spotters. 😂

 

[ATP]

I always assumed that tanks had some form of cooling, I mean, armored warfare was a thing in North Africa during WWII.

In any case, that umbrella is probably loved by any tank hunters and artillery spotters. 😂

They had.Except soviet tanks send to arabs - according to what i read,at least part of them do not have that.As a result,tank crew sometimes drinked water from radiators of their engines.

 

[Captain X]

There's cooling inside the tanks, but not sitting on top of the bloody thing. I'm going to guess someone doesn't work outside all that much.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Also in the old tanks, like M-48 in the picture, the only cooling was from the insufficient ventilation system, so if you were in hot place, then the only way to alleviate the discomfort was through improvisation. Twin M2 mount is also nonstandard modification.

that umbrella is probably loved by any tank hunters and artillery spotters.

It was a guerilla conflict so artillery was not much of a problem outside border areas and the way US armored forces operated, being spotted was not much of an issue, much bigger issue was not spotting the VC sappers in the tall grass, because the guy sitting on top was too fatigued from the elements.

 

[Agent23]

There's cooling inside the tanks, but not sitting on top of the bloody thing. I'm going to guess someone doesn't work outside all that much.

Closest to a tank I've been was in a museum, and even around here we don't let people climb in and play around.

So I have no idea of the benefits of being outside vs. inside, but I would assume that staying out of the tank in a war zone is an open invite to snipers or mortars to get a few easy kills.

Also in the old tanks, like M-48 in the picture, the only cooling was from the insufficient ventilation system, so if you were in hot place, then the only way to alleviate the discomfort was through improvisation. Twin M2 mount is also nonstandard modification.



It was a guerilla conflict so artillery was not much of a problem outside border areas and the way US armored forces operated, being spotted was not much of an issue, much bigger issue was not spotting the VC sappers in the tall grass, because the guy sitting on top was too fatigued from the elements.

Tell that to the Frienchies at Dien Bien Phu, they were surprised by Vietnamese artillery, too.

In any case, I don't think those tanks were of much use throughout most of the conflict.

The only time armor was relevant was IIRC the Tet offensive?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Tell that to the Frienchies at Dien Bien Phu, they were surprised by Vietnamese artillery, too.

To be fair, French military intelligence was convinced that the Viet Minh had little to no heavy artillery available for the actually quite sensible reason that they'd never seen them use any before. Moreover, the extremely difficult terrain around Dien Bien Phu made it seem entirely reasonable to conclude that even if the VM had a few heavy guns squirreled away, it would be nearly impossible for them to actually get them into position without being spotted and taken out by either airstrikes or counterbattery fire from the already emplaced French guns and their crack, hand-picked operators.

 

[PsihoKekec]

In any case, I don't think those tanks were of much use throughout most of the conflict.

To the contrary, they saw heavy use throughout the war Americans lost more than hundred as a complete write off, mostly to IEDs, mines and RPGs. They were used in convoy protection, road patrolling, base protection and spearheading combat operations in lowlands, as tanks can operate in underbrush and bamboo jungle. Apart from umbrellas or canvases to protect from the elements another common (and unauthorized) modification was more machineguns, as due to underbrush or tall grass, the VC could suddenly show up short range with satchel charges and RG-6 or RKG-3 hand grenades. At close distance the pellets from 90 mm canister shot weren't spread widely enough for maximum effort, so more machineguns were always sought by the crews.
One crew even managed to get their hands on M134

 

[BF110C4]

Also tanks in Vietnam were used as both the hammer and the anvil on Search and Destroy missions, being fast enough in even the worst terrain to outflank and outrun guerrilla and sturdy enough that one tactic used was for the tanks to advance firing automatic weapons in order to flush soldiers waiting in ambush until the tanks acting as containment (and crew safely stationed inside their vehicles) reported bullets boincing on their armor.

In particular the M60 was liked for its survivability to most handheld weapons and light artillery at even point blank range which at worst managed mission kills and light damage, and was part of the reason unexploded aviation bombs were converted into antitank mines.

 

[Agent23]

Also tanks in Vietnam were used as both the hammer and the anvil on Search and Destroy missions, being fast enough in even the worst terrain to outflank and outrun guerrilla and sturdy enough that one tactic used was for the tanks to advance firing automatic weapons in order to flush soldiers waiting in ambush until the tanks acting as containment (and crew safely stationed inside their vehicles) reported bullets boincing on their armor.

In particular the M60 was liked for its survivability to most handheld weapons and light artillery at even point blank range which at worst managed mission kills and light damage, and was part of the reason unexploded aviation bombs were converted into antitank mines.

And I am sure that the math whereupon you threw the lives of a tank crew and tank to potentially take out a few poor peasants with makeshift weapons made sense.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

And I am sure that the math whereupon you threw the lives of a tank crew and tank to potentially take out a few poor peasants with makeshift weapons made sense.

Don't be absurd. The math was that the NVA/VC had very limited anti-tank capability that was heavy enough to take a full MBT as opposed to a light tank, so you weren't "throwing away" a tank and crew to go after them. Those improvised anti-tank mines were generally at most capable of a mobility kill that did not actually harm the crew, you realize.

This is tanks doing their job as offensive assault powerhouses with very little risk to themselves.

 

[Zachowon]

Disability of a tank is major

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Disability of a tank is major

Yeah, but only a very few things were capable of actually doing that, and the point was even then the Army was absolutely *not* "throwing away a tank and crew" -- the tank was repairable and the crew uninjured. Because American tanks are not like those Soviet pieces of shit.

 

[Agent23]

Don't be absurd. The math was that the NVA/VC had very limited anti-tank capability that was heavy enough to take a full MBT as opposed to a light tank, so you weren't "throwing away" a tank and crew to go after them. Those improvised anti-tank mines were generally at most capable of a mobility kill that did not actually harm the crew, you realize.

This is tanks doing their job as offensive assault powerhouses with very little risk to themselves.

Oh, really, so anti-tank weapons were not a thing?

But, you don't seem to get the bigger picture, either.

The one where throwing tanks against peasant armies of insurgents is a stupid idea.

Tanks consume lots of fuel, are relatively slow, require lots of maintenance and are overall very expensive.

The vietnamese lose a few people severely times, but they either manage to evade the tank, probably in most situations, or take it out with some foreign provided weaponry.
Partizan warfare is one of hit and run attacks, after all.

Meanwhile to be effective your side needs to maintain a large tank force for a long while, the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

 

[PsihoKekec]

What the hell are you talking about? Use of armor in counterinsurgency operations is a common thing for a long time, Germans for example had dozens of police tank companies that supported their anti-partisan operations. Use of tanks in Vietnam was effective, US and ARVN forces would have suffered higher casualties in their operations if not for their mechanized elements. Soviets also found their tanks much needed in Afghanistan, despite the fact it was not exactly a tank country and Canadians also found their tanks to be a mayor life-savers.

 

[Agent23]

What the hell are you talking about? Use of armor in counterinsurgency operations is a common thing for a long time, Germans for example had dozens of police tank companies that supported their anti-partisan operations. Use of tanks in Vietnam was effective, US and ARVN forces would have suffered higher casualties in their operations if not for their mechanized elements. Soviets also found their tanks much needed in Afghanistan, despite the fact it was not exactly a tank country and Canadians also found their tanks to be a mayor life-savers.

Yeah, a persistent folly is still a folly.

Might I remind you that the Germans lost WWII and the USA lost in Vietnam?

Whatever tactical advantage was there to be gained from using tanks for policing actions did not have an impact sufficient to justify the cost.

The best way to use tanks is IMHO as a concentrated spearhead, not as glorified patrol cars that cost orders of magnitude more to operate.

 

[PsihoKekec]

These are not policing actions, these are military actions against light infantry units and tanks are force multiplicators in such operations. The German loss in WWII and American loss in Vietnam are caused by strategic and operational level factors, if you think it was caused by tactical level deployment of tanks then you are even more delusional than usual. Seriously, USA was using strategic bombers to crater areas with suspected VC/NVA presence, until it looked like surface of the Moon, expending several times the amount of bombs it did in the WWII, compared to that the cost of fielding several tank battalions is a rounding error.