Why does US scrap old tanks?

[jon_berzerk]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

that is why we have so much tank buster bombs and such

 

[williepete]

Really? Lasers cannot fire indirect in contrast to missiles. The Israeli Iron Dome followed a canceled laser system.

Excellent point.

 

[Bleipriester]

Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Nope. Just the opposite. A financial liability.

Tanks have been obsolete for 30 years.

TOW. Improved TOW
Javelin
Hell Fire
Maverick...
The international list of ATGWs runs on and on.

Maybe that's the real question: are tanks obsolete?

air-to-air missiles...
surface to air missiles...

Are planes obsolete?

Manned planes are, or soon will be. I'm not sure there's much a manned bomber or fighter can do that a drone can't. If we can shoot down an ICBM then we oughta be able to shoot down enemy planes too.

I saw documentations on the future of military aviation and thy said there will always be manned planes but not as much.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

that is why we have so much tank buster bombs and such

ONE BOMB KILLS 40 TANKS us air force CBU 105 cluster bomb

 

[Bleipriester]

Another thing that I am thinking is that if you had to rush 20,000 WW2 era tanks out, you would have to quickly train up infantrymen to man them. Let's say you took 20,000 Shermans manned by 100,000 infantrymen with no previous experience in a tank that were given a quick crash course on how operate it.

How many T-90s manned by experienced and well trained crews would it take to defeat them? Would 1,500 be enough?

If the 20000 Shermans are dedicated to infantry support roles, they would massively strengthen the infantry.

 

[task0778]

Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Nope. Just the opposite. A financial liability.

Tanks have been obsolete for 30 years.

TOW. Improved TOW
Javelin
Hell Fire
Maverick...
The international list of ATGWs runs on and on.

Maybe that's the real question: are tanks obsolete?

air-to-air missiles...
surface to air missiles...

Are planes obsolete?

Manned planes are, or soon will be. I'm not sure there's much a manned bomber or fighter can do that a drone can't. If we can shoot down an ICBM then we oughta be able to shoot down enemy planes too.

I saw documentations on the future of military aviation and thy said there will always be manned planes but not as much.

Did they say why? I don't know what a piloted plane can do that a drone or SAM can't. Plus I suspect at some point we'll have EMP systems that can destroy a plane's electronics and bring it down without using AA.

 

[westwall]

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

They wouldn't survive long enough to get to the battle field. Russia kept all of the old tanks for use as barter for their proxy country's they used to be allied with, additionally, they had a tactic of trading armies for a short while, the theory being they wipe out your army while losing theirs, they then trot out their second army equipped with old stuff, but because you have nothing, they win.

The problem with that tactic is they ran in to the real world and our tanks are MUCH better than those they field, and their first, second, and even third armies would be toast. So now, they are trying to build one good army that can survive a battle with ours.

A couple of points to be fair.


1. The theory was only tested by Iraq, a far smaller and lesser foe than the Soviet Union would have been. That we kicked Iraq's ass, does not mean we would have done as well in The Big One.


2. The Soviets did not have the infrastructure to maintain divisions in continued action, and thus has to think of them as "expendable resources" or at least to be used, pulled from service until rebuilt.

The Soviets used to sell "Monkey Model" tanks to their clients. Same armor, sites, powertrain etc, just not the latest electronics. The T-72's used in Iraq would have been the same used in the Big One save for their night vision gear. The M1's would have wiped the floor with them.

But how many more would have come? How much more air power and artillery would the M-A1s have faced on the way to the Front?

It truly doesn't matter. So long as they had ammo they would continue to kill the T-72's.

 

[westwall]

Another thing that I am thinking is that if you had to rush 20,000 WW2 era tanks out, you would have to quickly train up infantrymen to man them. Let's say you took 20,000 Shermans manned by 100,000 infantrymen with no previous experience in a tank that were given a quick crash course on how operate it.

How many T-90s manned by experienced and well trained crews would it take to defeat them? Would 1,500 be enough?

If the 20000 Shermans are dedicated to infantry support roles, they would massively strengthen the infantry.

Not really. They are easy meat for Javelin, TOW, etc. Hell an infantry man with an M203 and a HEDP round can punch a hole in a Sherman.

 

[toobfreak]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

I for one would love to have one of the older tanks to park in my backyard! Not only would it be a great conversation piece, a fun spot for my kids to play in, but what fun pointing the turret at some of my various troublesome neighbors! And on those days when the weather is bad, NO PROBLEM getting to work and back in the snow!!! Where can I buy one of these puppies!!!

 

[westwall]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

I for one would love to have one of the older tanks to park in my backyard! Not only would it be a great conversation piece, a fun spot for my kids to play in, but what fun pointing the turret at some of my various troublesome neighbors! And on those days when the weather is bad, NO PROBLEM getting to work and back in the snow!!! Where can I buy one of these puppies!!!

There are lots of them out there. When a Sherman comes up for sale they run around 60,000 to 100,000 depending on condition. The Stuart light tanks run even more than that because you don't need special transportation permits.

 

[depotoo]

I figured it out. You guys are worried what we will be supplying the Ukraine with...

 

[Bleipriester]

Nope. Just the opposite. A financial liability.

Tanks have been obsolete for 30 years.

TOW. Improved TOW
Javelin
Hell Fire
Maverick...
The international list of ATGWs runs on and on.

Maybe that's the real question: are tanks obsolete?

air-to-air missiles...
surface to air missiles...

Are planes obsolete?

Manned planes are, or soon will be. I'm not sure there's much a manned bomber or fighter can do that a drone can't. If we can shoot down an ICBM then we oughta be able to shoot down enemy planes too.

I saw documentations on the future of military aviation and thy said there will always be manned planes but not as much.

Did they say why? I don't know what a piloted plane can do that a drone or SAM can't. Plus I suspect at some point we'll have EMP systems that can destroy a plane's electronics and bring it down without using AA.

At some point, conventional aircraft with human pilots are required, they said.

 

[Bleipriester]

Another thing that I am thinking is that if you had to rush 20,000 WW2 era tanks out, you would have to quickly train up infantrymen to man them. Let's say you took 20,000 Shermans manned by 100,000 infantrymen with no previous experience in a tank that were given a quick crash course on how operate it.

How many T-90s manned by experienced and well trained crews would it take to defeat them? Would 1,500 be enough?

If the 20000 Shermans are dedicated to infantry support roles, they would massively strengthen the infantry.

Not really. They are easy meat for Javelin, TOW, etc. Hell an infantry man with an M203 and a HEDP round can punch a hole in a Sherman.

In so far they are not different to other tanks.

 

[williepete]

At some point, conventional aircraft with human pilots are required, they said.

I've been out of the game since '96 but that's what they used to say about Close Air Support. It's always good to have a set of eyeballs in the cockpit before pressing the pickle button. Another check in the process before releasing ordnance close to the good guys.

For what has been Brrrrrrrrt cannot be UnBrrrrrrrrrrt.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The T-72, like the M-60, are constantly being upgraded. But they are a generation behind the M-1 and T-90. Even the Russians, who are cash strapped, are upgrading theirs. The US has only the M-1 which puts them a generation ahead of many of the Russian Tanks.

Fielding the older tanks like the T-72 and the M-60 still will lose to the modern tank regardless of what you do to them.

 

[RandomPoster]

The T-72, like the M-60, are constantly being upgraded. But they are a generation behind the M-1 and T-90. Even the Russians, who are cash strapped, are upgrading theirs. The US has only the M-1 which puts them a generation ahead of many of the Russian Tanks.

Fielding the older tanks like the T-72 and the M-60 still will lose to the modern tank regardless of what you do to them.

The M1 costs about 20 times as much as the Sherman though. 100 M1A2s might have trouble going against 2000 M4 Shermans.

 

[williepete]

The M1 costs about 20 times as much as the Sherman though. 100 M1A2s might have trouble going against 2000 M4 Shermans.

^^^Reminds me of a history documentary I watched years ago. A German Tiger tank crewmember was being interviewed. He said, "A Tiger could knock out 10 Sherman tanks. The only problem was there were usually 11, 12, 13...."