| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kirjava
Royal Hiigaran Navy
   |
Posted - 2008.04.19 12:31:00 -
[1]
Okay, have tried figuring this one out by myself and I amn going to admit failure and ask the Eve forums....
Tank has a gun, this is a dumb, unguided weapon with relativly low range. A ship can have a LRM system and bomb the hell out of a tanks unit with long range guidable weapons. A fighter-bomber has the same effect.
To the best of my limited civvie knowlege, a tank cant do much against either a ship thats sitting in the ocean or against a fighter-bomber or the incoming missiles.
This comes to the question, why isn't the tank obsolete when ship LRMs and bombers can achieve the same efect without commiting the crews of a tank into the possibility of being taken out by mines?
Battleships became obsolete in their prime because of this, the only thing I can think of is fuel efficiency.... and even then....
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Asestorian
Domination.
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 12:39:00 -
[2]
Well, I don't know much about it, but as far as I can tell the advantage is that a tank can react far quicker to threats than a ship or an aircraft, unless the aircraft is already in the sky in the general area. They also have a psychological value. Having a large armoured gun swooping around in your face is far scarier than the possibility of a ship hitting you from far away, even if the ship is ultimately far more dangerous.
It's also entirely possible for an enemy to detect an incoming missile from a ship and avoid it, whereas a tank being right there can just blast everything right in front of it with the enemy having very little chance to avoid it.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when railguns start getting used on ships though.
---
 Quote:
Welcome to EVE, a PvP game where people are - shockingly - allowed to PvP as much as they like.
|
Kirjava
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 12:54:00 -
[3]
Railguns could see a reintroduction of the Battleship, but I wonder what the tolerances would be to fire a missile from a railgun launcher....
The main problem is the need for electicity to fire the damned things (lets assume for the moment that they have sorted out the problems with it self destructing). 2 options here, more nuclear powerplants coupled with capacitors or capacitors used like rounds.
Depends on how good the carbon nanotube capacitors are I suppose. Though if we have carbon nanotubing in theory we could start making vaccum containers to the efficiency of creating bouyancy. If we have the possibility to create floating ships. That would greatly increase the range of the Railguns with a higher vantage point 
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 12:57:00 -
[4]
Long range guided missiles (e.g. a Tomahawk) are not accurate enough to hit a moving tank although they can spew area denial munitions which may kill a tank. They are not that smart or agile.
Further, tanks can hide behind trees, hills, buildings and so on making them a lot harder for a missile to engage.
For planes and helicopters sure...they will eat tanks for breakfast. But of course the enemy usually has anti-air weapons and planes/helicopters of their own trying to kill your planes and helicopters.
Then consider numbers. A plane can carry only a relative few munitions to take out a tank (unless you have an A-10 with that hellacious cannon it carries but for those you need to own the skies and hope the enemy has few man portable anti-air weapons as the A-10 is very close support for a plane).
So you get into costs. An M1A1 Abrams main battle tank costs around $4.3 million each. A Tomahawk missile costs $600,000/each. An F-16 costs $19 million. Then add in the pilot which is much more valuable than a tanker (takes far longer and more money to train a fighter pilot than a tanker). An Apache helicopter costs $18 million.
So I can field four (or more) tanks for the same cost you can field one plane to kill it. I can train a new tank crew in three months where it'll take you a year or more to train one new pilot. Now add in all the support a plane needs compared to a tank plus your airports where you fuel them are a strategic target while I can put my tanks nearly anywhere and tend to them.
But yes, if your enemy controls the skies your tanks are in for a world of hurt as was shown twice in Iraq where the Iraqi tanks were just mauled (that and the Abrams out matched them easily as well even though technically their main battle tanks were comparable...Abrams and their crews were still better though).
|
Zalathar
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 12:59:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Zalathar on 19/04/2008 13:03:00
Because a tank can hold and control ground, capture points, and engage enemy infantry and armor at close range while supporting its own troops.
Tank formations can be used to spearhead attacks and outflank enemies.
Naval bombardement is useless in an urban warfare environment. A tank does not need a secure airbase like a fighterbomber, and can attack targets further away from the sea.
A tank is tougher than a fighterbomber.
A tank can be placed at an intersection at roads to block passage/hold position.
Tanks are more mobile than ships, and deliver more bang per dollar.
Large formations of tank can cause tank shock.
C-WIZ (spelling?) or Goalkeeper can take out imbound slow(ish) missiles.
Imperator jorah already said this but missils are not very accurate and are expensive.
Ships cant really take cover.
Attack helicopters/planes will never be as tough as tanks.
Tanks can use pre-existing roads to get around.
Tanks still have their useses, though they may eventually be phased out by wheeled mobile guns. |
Kirjava
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 13:02:00 -
[6]
Thankyou Imp for sorting that out 
Seems I put too much stock in the accuracy or LRMS then  |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 13:03:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kirjava
Railguns could see a reintroduction of the Battleship, but I wonder what the tolerances would be to fire a missile from a railgun launcher....
They were working on rocket assisted shells to be fired from standard cannons. Essentially take your battleship shell and strap a rocket to its ass. This would increase the range of the shell from 20 miles to something like 100 miles or more (maybe up to 300 miles but I forget). The shell is still unguided but then those battleships could be a lot more accurate than one might guess.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 13:10:00 -
[8]
My amateur analysis:
I assume it's got a lot to do with the amount of cover there is on the ground relative to the size of the target to be hit, the expense and weight of a missile system that can reliably kill tanks (the Javelin weighs 50lbs for the whole system and costs $80k), continueing improvements in tank armour, the rarity of situations where tanks do get used against foes with ATGWs that effective, combined arms tactics and the continued usefulness of them where the enemy only has small arms and lesser tube launched systems.
I mean you're right in that missiles/rockets do present real problems for tanks under the right circumstances (see: Chechnya, possibly the July War in lebanon) but tanks have got big **** off guns, a distinct mobility advantage and thick armour. Most of the situations where missiles are a problem it's more to do with the general problems of fighting in a city (lots of cover, 3D battlefield) than range or technical aspects of the weapons the infantry are using beyond there being better missiles/rockets than there are anti-tank rifles.
IEDs are probably a bigger threat. Those allow a much bigger "warhead" to be deployed right to one of the weakest spots.
The answer to aircraft is either air superiority or AA systems. Some tanks have weapons that can shoot down helicopters too (in theory anyway).
You also have to wonder you'd replace them with them with. I mean whatever weapon you mount on your replacement it needs to be able to advance quickly and take and hold ground. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 13:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kirjava
Thankyou Imp for sorting that out
Seems I put too much stock in the accuracy or LRMS then
They are plenty accurate to hit things that do not move (like buildings or a tank that is not and will not move for awhile).
But if the tank is zooming about forget it. Although a Tomahawk can carry cluster munitions which can zap a whole tank formation.
|
Zalathar
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 14:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
IEDs are probably a bigger threat. Those allow a much bigger "warhead" to be deployed right to one of the weakest spots.
I am by no means a professional source, but i dont think a roadside bomb presents a very large threat to a main battle tank with heavy (or even reactive) armor, unless it detoneates under the chassis of the tank, as it does not have much directed force, and think armor repells shrapnel.
~~~~~~
*mods, if you think i'm ugly please say "eeek!"*
~~~~~~
eeeeeekk  - Deckard
eeeeee...K -Darth Patches
gawwwd damn!!1 -zhuge
you soo pretty
I think you're stunningly handsome and let me just say that you're wearing that dead parrot on your shoulder in a particularly dashing way today. -Hango
Your using up all the space hango! - Timmeh |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 17:45:00 -
[11]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 19/04/2008 17:45:42
Originally by: Zalathar
Originally by: SoftRevolution
IEDs are probably a bigger threat. Those allow a much bigger "warhead" to be deployed right to one of the weakest spots.
I am by no means a professional source, but i dont think a roadside bomb presents a very large threat to a main battle tank with heavy (or even reactive) armor, unless it detoneates under the chassis of the tank, as it does not have much directed force, and think armor repells shrapnel.
That's what I was thinking of.
I forget where but I was reading somewhere about really big shaped charge IEDs being left to go off right under the tank.
This is an example and here is a news story but the article was talking in really specific terms about quite heavy anti-tank mines. It struck me as a half clever solution to getting a heavy enough warhead to a tank to make a hole in it.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 19:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: goodby4u on 19/04/2008 19:43:50
Edited by: goodby4u on 19/04/2008 19:43:32
Edited by: goodby4u on 19/04/2008 19:43:06
The reason the tank and the gun isnt obsolete is because the tank has land holding capability, and the gun uses dumb rounds so they can be more compact and harder hitting.
Another words, if a ship comes to your side of the ocean and bombards you with cruise missiles that sucks, but if thats happening and a tank is mowing down any groups that wouldve survived...Now thats a bad day.
And about the railgun, these things might seem like they are going to be loaded on our ships tomarrow but they are nowhere near completion.
In order to power one you need a building full of capaciters charging up and spewing the round down a 20 foot barrel with 50 200,000 pound tested bolts holding the damn thing together.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |