The main purpose of the tanks

[rupol2000]

There are 2 different opinions on this matter. Some sources claim that the tanks are the support of the infantry in the offensive, others claim that they were intended to break through the front and deep operations. Who is right?

 

[fncceo]

The main purpose of the tanks​

To store liquids and gasses under pressure.

 

[badbob85037]

There are 2 different opinions on this matter. Some sources claim that the tanks are the support of the infantry in the offensive, others claim that they were intended to break through the front and deep operations. Who is right?

It would depend on if you were using them for offence or defense.

 

[mudwhistle]

To store liquids and gasses under pressure.

I put fish in a tank.

 

[rupol2000]

It would depend on if you were using them for offence or defense.

both strategies provide an attack

The essence of infantry support lies in the fact that during the offensive, the infantry falls under a flurry of oncoming fire, and this leads to large casualties. To cover the offensive by suppressing the enemy's firepower, tanks go first.

In the case of a deep operation, tanks break through the front in several places and enter from the enemy's rear, developing a strategic initiative and disorganizing the enemy's front.

 

[Crepitus]

both strategies provide an attack

Protecting your troops is defense even if you're on the offensive.

Third option. I have heard a very experienced infantry commander speculate that the true purpose of tanks is to get cut off and surrounded to trigger a "rescue response" in the infantry and cause them to surge forward to save them.

"Oh look, them dumbass tankers is gonna git themselfs kilt. We better go get'em." In the gentleman's own words.

 

[rupol2000]

I think that it is precisely the case of a deep operation that is the immediate destination, because it is not necessary to cover the offensive of the infantry from tanks, the main thing is to suppress the firepower, this can be done by artillery or aviation.

 

[Crepitus]

both strategies provide an attack

The essence of infantry support lies in the fact that during the offensive, the infantry falls under a flurry of oncoming fire, and this leads to large casualties. To cover the offensive by suppressing the enemy's firepower, tanks go first.

In the case of a deep operation, tanks break through the front in several places and enter from the enemy's rear, developing a strategic initiative and disorganizing the enemy's front.

Both of those things can be accomplished by infantry, and you're thinking along the lines of old style trench warfare here. Enemy lines are few and far between these days.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[rupol2000]

Both of those things can be accomplished by infantry, and you're thinking along the lines of old style trench warfare here. Enemy lines are few and far between these days.

In fact, all this remained, this role is taken on by the Infantry Fighting Vehicles(also known as a mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV)) in motorized rifle divisions. Apparently, their immediate task is, in addition to delivery, to provide cover with fire, but unlike a tank, it is not designed to break through the front.

 

[whitehall]

There is no evidence that (U.S.) tanks were ever used alone in "deep operations". It's a fantasy possibly generated by vid. games kids grew up with in the last couple of decades.

 

[gearpile]

There are 2 different opinions on this matter. Some sources claim that the tanks are the support of the infantry in the offensive, others claim that they were intended to break through the front and deep operations. Who is right?

There are now trefoil accelerators installed on all M1A2 Abrams tanks. Bring it on Russia.

 

[rupol2000]

Yes, I found confirmation of my guesses. The background is this: by the time of the First World War, the Front had deepened a lot and more powerful machine guns and artillery appeared. This made it difficult for the cavalry to break through, which is why tanks appeared.

It is written here, but unfortunately in Russian only

Маневренная война и прорыв фронта, или зачем нужны Мехкорпуса? | Армии и Солдаты. Военная энциклопедия

Роль механизированных соединений в прорыве обороны противника. Различия в подходах к прорыву обороны в первой и второй мировой войне Армии и Солдаты - новости техники и вооружения

armedman.ru

 

[rupol2000]

quote:
Tanks, which appeared as a tool for breaking through the front, could not replace cavalry. Although their armor and firepower allowed them to break through the enemy's defenses, their low speed and maneuverability did not allow them to go into the rear of the enemy and strike at his communications. For this reason, in the battles of 1918, the cavalry had to build on the success achieved by the tanks. Although the cavalry remained a means of mobile warfare, the operation still needed to be transferred to this mobile war, breaking through the enemy's front.

 

[Bleipriester]

There are 2 different opinions on this matter. Some sources claim that the tanks are the support of the infantry in the offensive, others claim that they were intended to break through the front and deep operations. Who is right?

There is hardly a scenario where tanks aren´t useful. Highly mobile, heavily armored and armed, tanks suit in any situation.

 

[rupol2000]

There is hardly a scenario where tanks aren´t useful. Highly mobile, heavily armored and armed, tanks suit in any situation.

There is an opinion that in the conditions of an urban landscape they are useless.
In any conditions where they cannot move freely, they will be useless. For example in the mountains.

But this is not the question here. The technique should be used where it is effective, and not where it is capable of something.

 

[Bleipriester]

There is an opinion that in the conditions of an urban landscape they are useless.
In any conditions where they cannot move freely, they will be useless. For example in the mountains.

But this is not the question here. The technique should be used where it is effective, and not where it is capable of something.

Yeah there is an stupid opinion like that. Latest proof that tanks are a major trump in urban warfare too is the Syrian war.
There is no such thing as opinion on the battlefield by the way. Only facts matter. Fact is you are better off with tanks.

 

[rupol2000]

Yeah there is an stupid opinion like that. Latest proof that tanks are a major trump in urban warfare too is the Syrian war.
There is no such thing as opinion on the battlefield by the way. Only facts matter. Fact is you are better off with tanks.

How exactly does tanks help to wage urban warfare?

 

[lennypartiv]

There are 2 different opinions on this matter. Some sources claim that the tanks are the support of the infantry in the offensive, others claim that they were intended to break through the front and deep operations. Who is right?

The original purpose was to break through enemy lines, but the British soon realized the attacks needed to be a coordinated effort by the tanks and by infantry in order to hold the land gained.

 

[Bleipriester]

How exactly does tanks help to wage urban warfare?

In several ways.
- Bring infantry to where they couldn´t go alone
- Provide cover for infantry while advancing
- Smoke out infantry in buildings
- Suppress infantry
- Cover withdrawal
- Regular combat against anything

Of course, tanks are not invincible and many where destroyed in Syria but after all outbalanced even all the suicide attackers, mined buildings, RPGs, ect.

Another example is the German Leopard 2A7 tank, which is designed for urban warfare. The early version even had a short main gun.