Re: [DS] Why tank destroyers?

At 12:07 AM +0100 9/7/01, David Brewer wrote:
>
>For what it's worth, you might want to ponder if a tank's main
>purpose in life *is* to destroy other tanks. Reductio ad absurdum
>would lead to solving the problem of the enemy's tanks... by
>simply not bringing any tanks for them to shoot at, which would
>dramatically devalue their expensive tank fleet.

Thats one of the odd things about tanks. When they have an option for 
firing HE rounds, they make a great shock force. They are fast, 
heavily armed and armoured. The End run around the Iraqi forces that 
the US and allies did during the Gulf War was a classic armoured 
thrust. Monty and Rommel would have been pleased I think.

The tank is not for fighting other tanks. Its job is to get around 
the enemy. Its bloody good at fighting tanks now if you look at the 
front line forces the US, the British and Germans use. Against 
inferior tanks they win hands down. Against each other, it's less of 
an easy guess.

>Tanks started off life in WWI by being infantry-crushing monsters
>which were as invulnerable to artillery and infantry weapons as
>technology then allowed. Has this really changed?

Tanks that get bracketed by an artillery barrage of the right type 
are just as dead now as they were during WWII. German tank formations 
had heavy problems trying not to be pummeled senseless before they 
could get into combat. They may not have been completely destroyed, 
but if 60% of your force is some how damaged  (radios, fire control, 
damaged suspension, wounded crew) then you're going to have a hard 
attack.

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -