"Imagine"

[Guest]

No no my friend, that was thought to be the case many times over their history but in the real world that is simply not the case

OK Jim. Why ?


Laurie

[eddiesolo]

I would have thought, mobility and firepower.

[grumpa]

OK Jim. Why ?
Laurie

Would you ever think of going to war without themo_O

[Guest]

Well they were no good in Afghanistan cos the other side did not have tanks, I think.


They were not much cop in the Iraqi war as the Iraqi tanks were located and hit by guided missiles from F16.


If Iraq had the same capability they would have crucified USA & GB tanks.


Same story as Battleships which were outdated in the WW11 and superseded


by aircraft carriers. Battleships decimated at Pearl Harbour. The Hood and


Bismark went in a week. Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk the same day.


Except The Hood all due to aircraft.


Drones can locate and transmit information from a battlefield and aircraft


well back from the battle field can release targeted missiles to destroy.


Tanks are slow easily detectable targets. Nice juicy infra-red targets at night


and in the day. Any hope they have at the moment will be erased by all the


new technology coming through. Includes robots in many forms.


Laurie

[Lee W]

Israel have put good use to their tanks...for anti missile self defense they have a Trophy system...this certainly works against RPGS and said like weapons, it acts like a shield for incoming ordnance.


The Americans are looking into it for their vehicles.


As for Afghanistan, the Americans, Canadians and Dutch to name some countries did put tanks in the field, to do a tank job but at the same time act as close support artillery.


Laurie, if Iraq had the same capabilities as ourselves and the Americans, it wouldn't of made a difference due to training, we train hard and are trained to the highest standards, the Iraqis were trained!


Manually driven or robots, the tank will continue on the battlefield, armies have learnt that the soldier and tank need each other for support.


Lee

[Guest]

it wouldn't of made a difference due to training, we train hard and are trained to the highest standards, the Iraqis were trained!

That is why I mentioned same capabilities both machine and men Lee.


Actually I said tanks were on the way out not finished. Many experimental types of vehicles are being assessed to replace the tank. Greater fire power from a small machine and a small vehicle which does not have a radar signature unlike tanks. Carries minimum crew or non at all.


Laurie

[Guest]

Did you know where the Tank got its name. Looked it up last night. I thought it


must be some concoction from Latin. How wrong


Pinched this it is apparently from the Tank Museum.


Many people claim to have coined this word, for many different reasons. The


Tank Museum favours the claim of Albert Stern, secretary to the Admiralty


Landships Committee. Since it was agreed that the term Landship was too


descriptive, alternatives were sought. Bearing in mind its appearance most


suggestions were for things like water tanks, such as cistern, but they finally


settled on Water Carrier. Aware of the military penchant for initials Albert


Stern did not relish being secretary to the W. C. Committee so he claims to


have chosen TANK instead.


Just to add that they looked for a name to keep Tanks secret until they went


to war.


Laurie