Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Interactive
You're comparing our 'tank technology' of ww2/korea/vietnam to that of today, not really fair wouldn't you say?
If your dad was a tank commander why don't you enlighten us on what model he worked on, along with where he was stationed and took AIT?
American tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains? Hahahahaha....
|
tank mechanic, not commander. as in he dealt with all the **** that broke down, he did not lead them into battle.
I will ask him what models he worked on and what not when he gets home from New York.
And yes, they are not good for rugged terrain.
Also realize that rolling, open plains and fields are considered 'tank country.' Clear lines of sight and communication, very little for enemy armor to hide behind, and provides for the best speed and manuverability. Deserts are good for this as well
And North Korean tanks are smaller (based on the Abrams) with better maneuverability as well as speed in rugged terrain. They also use the Russian technology to use the tanks in amphibious situations (driving throuh deep rivers).
And in rugged terrain, the US Tanks (m1 abrams) and apc (m3 bradley) can fight very well defensively due to superior US technology. Their problem is the offensive.
It is documented that US Generals have warned against using US Tanks in mountaineous or rough terrain areas (like Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan) and Urban Warfare (like Somalia, Iraq, etc). The exception to using a tank in urban warfare is when there is a sufficient amount of ground troops as support...
And tell me, what war has the US demonstrated good strategy in using tanks in rough terrain? Rather than point out something you think I said is wrong and laughing, maybe we should bring up points of fact to counter?