Why does US scrap old tanks?

[Bleipriester]

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?

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.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

You ignore that Russia does not only maintain old tanks but also the most modern. How could 20.000 additional tanks be a disadvantage?
When a vehicle does emit unusual much heat, it is a M1 tank. An old T-55 then would try to avoid it and leave it to T-90, Armata or CAS.
Soft targets are soldiers or light armor like Humvees.

Well, first off, there is the logistics of trying to keep old tanks fighting against old tanks. But the problem there is that no sensible army is going to send in just their old stuff, they will send in modern equipment as well.

And, if we put those old tanks out and the enemy started sending in modern ones (and they would when they saw we had the old stuff) they are going to lose. And the second you put a tank crew in an old tank against a modern one, that tank crew is toast and will die.

Like I said, fighting with outdated equipment is stupid and suicidal. Remember when Jr initially sent our troops to Afghanistan without proper armor for their Humvees? Lots of people died and those that didn't were seeking out scrap yards to find something to use as armor to weld on their vehicles.

No. Fighting with outdated equipment will only result in higher losses of personnel. If you hate the military that protects this country, then yeah, bring back the old stuff and let 'em try to win.

War is not going by a screenplay and you either have the 20000 additional tanks or you don´t. Those who don´t will pay the price in a real war.

 

[fncceo]

The Soviets were the first to mount smooth bore cannons.

Actually, that was the Chinese ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 guess it's about money.

In the early 1900s the British Navy had a policy of keeping older ships. They were used for secondary tasks. However they cost a lot of money to keep up, even if the ship wasn't being used. So they made the decision to scrap those, and spend the money on actually having an effective fighting force instead. It was beneficial for them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

You ignore that Russia does not only maintain old tanks but also the most modern. How could 20.000 additional tanks be a disadvantage?
When a vehicle does emit unusual much heat, it is a M1 tank. An old T-55 then would try to avoid it and leave it to T-90, Armata or CAS.
Soft targets are soldiers or light armor like Humvees.

Well, first off, there is the logistics of trying to keep old tanks fighting against old tanks. But the problem there is that no sensible army is going to send in just their old stuff, they will send in modern equipment as well.

And, if we put those old tanks out and the enemy started sending in modern ones (and they would when they saw we had the old stuff) they are going to lose. And the second you put a tank crew in an old tank against a modern one, that tank crew is toast and will die.

Like I said, fighting with outdated equipment is stupid and suicidal. Remember when Jr initially sent our troops to Afghanistan without proper armor for their Humvees? Lots of people died and those that didn't were seeking out scrap yards to find something to use as armor to weld on their vehicles.

No. Fighting with outdated equipment will only result in higher losses of personnel. If you hate the military that protects this country, then yeah, bring back the old stuff and let 'em try to win.

War is not going by a screenplay and you either have the 20000 additional tanks or you don´t. Those who don´t will pay the price in a real war.

Unless those tanks are rusting away and aren't fit for purpose. Iraq had tanks in 2003. What happened to them?

 

[fncceo]

Iraq had tanks in 2003. What happened to them?

They got turned into inner city playground equipment ...

 

[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.

M1 is not that great and it is decades old, too. A T-72 can destroy it within 1000 meters (Iraqis had problems because they used their own ammo). While the M1 has a good targeting system, its armor proved to be vulnerabel to old soviet rpgs and explosives. While the M1 can be recovered when not destroyed, the process is slow and no new tanks are produced in the US.

That is a laughable assertion. There are MULTIPLE accounts of T-72's hitting Abrams tanks at ranges of 100m and less, and having the 120mm RAPIRA rounds lodge in the armor. One Abrams crew thought they had hit a mine until they got hit a second time. They slewed the turret, found the offender and blew him to bits with a single round. The Iraqi Army Abrams tanks are not equipped with the DU armor Suite that American tanks are so they are more vulnerable than our tanks, that's the only reason I can fathom for you making such a ridiculous claim.

You have learned little to nothing about non-american arms. The Soviets were the first to mount smooth bore cannons. The 2A46 cannon can fire a multitude of ammunition types including both shells and missiles and is stabilized to some extend.

"The T-72 employs the same armament, ammunition, and integrated fire control as the T-64. The low, rounded turret mounts a 125mm smooth bore gun with a carousel automatic loader mounted on the floor and rear wall of the turret. The 125mm gun common to all the T-72 models is capable of penetrating the M1 Abrams armour at a range of up to 1,000 meters. The more recent BK-27 HEAT round offers a triple-shaped charge warhead and increased penetration against conventional armors and ERA. The BK-29 round, with a hard penetrator in the nose is designed for use against reactive armor, and as an MP round has fragmentation effects. If the BK-29 HEAT-MP is used, it may substitute for Frag-HE (as with NATO countries) or complement Frag-HE. With three round natures (APFSDS-T, HEAT-MP, ATGMs) in the autoloader vs four, more antitank rounds would available for the higher rate of fire.

The infra-red searchlight on the T-72 is mounted on the right side of the main armament, versus on the left on the earlier T-64. The 1K13-49 sight is both night sight and ATGM launch sight. However, it cannot be used for both functions simultaneously. A variety of thermal sights is available. They include the Russian Agava-2, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng. Thermal gunner night sights are available which permit night launch of ATGMs."

T72 Tank Characteristics

I've actually driven a T-72. You? I would hazard a guess that I know waaay the hell more about them than you do. The 125mm Rapira can not punch the Abrams. Real world experience shows this statement to be true. The DU armor suite on the Abrams is immune to anything the Russians can throw at it.

 

[Correll]

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?

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.

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

M1 is not that great and it is decades old, too. A T-72 can destroy it within 1000 meters (Iraqis had problems because they used their own ammo). While the M1 has a good targeting system, its armor proved to be vulnerabel to old soviet rpgs and explosives. While the M1 can be recovered when not destroyed, the process is slow and no new tanks are produced in the US.

That is a laughable assertion. There are MULTIPLE accounts of T-72's hitting Abrams tanks at ranges of 100m and less, and having the 120mm RAPIRA rounds lodge in the armor. One Abrams crew thought they had hit a mine until they got hit a second time. They slewed the turret, found the offender and blew him to bits with a single round. The Iraqi Army Abrams tanks are not equipped with the DU armor Suite that American tanks are so they are more vulnerable than our tanks, that's the only reason I can fathom for you making such a ridiculous claim.

You have learned little to nothing about non-american arms. The Soviets were the first to mount smooth bore cannons. The 2A46 cannon can fire a multitude of ammunition types including both shells and missiles and is stabilized to some extend.

"The T-72 employs the same armament, ammunition, and integrated fire control as the T-64. The low, rounded turret mounts a 125mm smooth bore gun with a carousel automatic loader mounted on the floor and rear wall of the turret. The 125mm gun common to all the T-72 models is capable of penetrating the M1 Abrams armour at a range of up to 1,000 meters. The more recent BK-27 HEAT round offers a triple-shaped charge warhead and increased penetration against conventional armors and ERA. The BK-29 round, with a hard penetrator in the nose is designed for use against reactive armor, and as an MP round has fragmentation effects. If the BK-29 HEAT-MP is used, it may substitute for Frag-HE (as with NATO countries) or complement Frag-HE. With three round natures (APFSDS-T, HEAT-MP, ATGMs) in the autoloader vs four, more antitank rounds would available for the higher rate of fire.

The infra-red searchlight on the T-72 is mounted on the right side of the main armament, versus on the left on the earlier T-64. The 1K13-49 sight is both night sight and ATGM launch sight. However, it cannot be used for both functions simultaneously. A variety of thermal sights is available. They include the Russian Agava-2, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng. Thermal gunner night sights are available which permit night launch of ATGMs."

T72 Tank Characteristics

I've actually driven a T-72. You? I would hazard a guess that I know waaay the hell more about them than you do. The 125mm Rapira can not punch the Abrams. Real world experience shows this statement to be true. The DU armor suite on the Abrams is immune to anything the Russians can throw at it.

Usual supremacy talk. In fact, the US forces in Iraq needed nonstop CAS by the A-10.

 

[Bleipriester]

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

You ignore that Russia does not only maintain old tanks but also the most modern. How could 20.000 additional tanks be a disadvantage?
When a vehicle does emit unusual much heat, it is a M1 tank. An old T-55 then would try to avoid it and leave it to T-90, Armata or CAS.
Soft targets are soldiers or light armor like Humvees.

Well, first off, there is the logistics of trying to keep old tanks fighting against old tanks. But the problem there is that no sensible army is going to send in just their old stuff, they will send in modern equipment as well.

And, if we put those old tanks out and the enemy started sending in modern ones (and they would when they saw we had the old stuff) they are going to lose. And the second you put a tank crew in an old tank against a modern one, that tank crew is toast and will die.

Like I said, fighting with outdated equipment is stupid and suicidal. Remember when Jr initially sent our troops to Afghanistan without proper armor for their Humvees? Lots of people died and those that didn't were seeking out scrap yards to find something to use as armor to weld on their vehicles.

No. Fighting with outdated equipment will only result in higher losses of personnel. If you hate the military that protects this country, then yeah, bring back the old stuff and let 'em try to win.

War is not going by a screenplay and you either have the 20000 additional tanks or you don´t. Those who don´t will pay the price in a real war.

Unless those tanks are rusting away and aren't fit for purpose. Iraq had tanks in 2003. What happened to them?

They had cheap Iraqi rounds. The tanks were destroyed by the German L/44 guns that are mounted on the M1 from afar in the open desert.

 

[Bleipriester]

The Soviets were the first to mount smooth bore cannons.

Actually, that was the Chinese ...

Cool stuff!

 

[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?

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.

 

[Correll]

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?

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?

 

[williepete]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[williepete]

Are planes obsolete?

As lasers mature, I'd say yes in about 20 years. And it breaks my old fighter pilot heart.

 

[RandomPoster]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Bleipriester]

Are planes obsolete?

As lasers mature, I'd say yes in about 20 years. And it breaks my old fighter pilot heart.

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

 

[williepete]

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

Here's the real question.

Followed shortly by this one:

If we can shoot down an ICBM then we oughta be able to shoot down enemy planes too.