Small infantry detachment can hold ground best of all things listed. Tanks may do it but less well than infantry, as history has shown. Any airborne vehicle can't do it. It can dominate it while it is around to a degree that can destroy things it can see.
The Walking Tank
- Thread starter Pkmatrix
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cold war timeline world war 2
Small infantry detachment can hold ground best of all things listed. Tanks may do it but less well than infantry, as history has shown. Any airborne vehicle can't do it. It can dominate it while it is around to a degree that can destroy things it can see.
I didn't trail off, I simply used ... to indicate their usual use, that is indicate things similar to what is listed before them to follow but don't feel like listing them all.
There is no flaw as history shows us that at no point has air power been able to gain or hold ground. You need ground troops for that. Infantry, to be precise.
Tank can sit quietly and survey the land around it. It can do that with empty tank and continue to do it for days. Crew can rest when there is no combat and can eat at quiet times as well.
Tanks are less flexible than infantry but can do the job in a pinch. Which is why historically infantry was used to take and hold ground.
To get the thread back on topic.
I realize the OP was about tanks but what about gun trucks? The fact that GE created a walking truck that works in a crude way should give weight to the idea. Now give the truck a HMGunner or a recoilless rifle, a little armor, and a dash of improvements in key areas (larger footprint, greater capacity, etc) and you get … well quite frankly, it’s not much but it could lead to further research and possibly niche vehicles for patrol in harsh terrain. I’m sure others have thought of this, so please comment to give an idea how difficult it is when scaled up as an AFV.
I realize the OP was about tanks but what about gun trucks? The fact that GE created a walking truck that works in a crude way should give weight to the idea. Now give the truck a HMGunner or a recoilless rifle, a little armor, and a dash of improvements in key areas (larger footprint, greater capacity, etc) and you get … well quite frankly, it’s not much but it could lead to further research and possibly niche vehicles for patrol in harsh terrain. I’m sure others have thought of this, so please comment to give an idea how difficult it is when scaled up as an AFV.
Cook
Banned
In immobile tank is called a target and one without fuel barely rates as even that, a tank is a strike tool and in that function an assault helicopter trumps it.
An assault helicopter can dominate a much wider area simply because it is faster, has longer legs and is not obstructed by terrain.
All elements of land forces need to be used in the correct mix and in their correct function and dependent on the mission,obstacle and opposition; have infantry try to assault anything unsupported and all you will end up with is a lot of dead bodies.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Helicopters are incredibly useful for short term support. As Phil said, they're good at inserting troops--which you admit is the best option here. A small infantry detachment can't rapidly deploy. A small infantry detachment with a helo can. A small infantry detachment can be easily overrun. A helo goes a long way towards preventing that.
Pkmatrix
Monthly Donor
Yes. It's just a fun little idea I had and decided to play with, it's not meant to be large-scale at all. Delving a bit into what I've got planned:
The Russian W-83 will have the largest production run of any Walking Tank, topping out at 12 (3 Block 1 test units, 9 Block 2 MP units), and see the most combat service. The American version will probably top out at two (and won't see service until the 2000s). A Chinese knock-off of the W-83 won't see beyond the prototype unit. That makes about 15 total Walking Tanks having been produced (though that isn't the number existent
) by 2011 (of course, that ignores the unused Nazi units and the Object 169 prototype).Solomaxwell6
Banned
As stated, it's just a big target. They can radio in--once--that an enemy force is coming (if they have enough power for radio, anyway), and it's a very expensive way to get one early forewarning.
Where are they going to get that food? They don't have infinite stocks. They can last longer than a helicopter, but far from indefinitely.
Long term. For short term, when you don't have a large number of units handy, you need support. And that's where the helicopters come into play.
Once again I must play devil advocate.
True on the first account but I say this picture shows where "legs" are at its greatest advantage and with moderate disadvantages
Notice the uneven terrain and the firm ground. Think mountain goat not bull elephant.
True on the first account but I say this picture shows where "legs" are at its greatest advantage and with moderate disadvantages
Notice the uneven terrain and the firm ground. Think mountain goat not bull elephant.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
There are specialized treads that can get over that easy. They can essentially rotate independently of the body (and in some cases even have joints). They're basically treads that can temporarily function as legs, if necessary. And since they're easier to build, sturdier, and faster, no point in having large scale walkers for one specialized purpose that the general form can do just as easily.
loughery111
Banned
Also, a walker has no fundamental advantage over infantry in this terrain. It can carry slightly heavier weapons but is extremely vulnerable to infantry-borne AT weapons, and it cannot take cover. Using a walker here is somewhat like using tanks in dense forest; the compromises you would need to get armor in there would seriously impact its effectiveness.
Once again I must drag the fantasists back to first principles...
How much armor and weaponry can your "mountain goat" carry? What amount of ground pressure will the weight of that armor and weaponry, plus weight of the chassis carrying them and the power plant moving them, produce? Will that ground pressure be low enough to prevent the vehicle from bogging? Will the vehicle be nimble and/or fast enough to be something other than a target?
We already know the answers to those questions given current or plausibly predicted technologies and those answers all say these ideas will not work.
Yes. the point being they insert troops, then leave and inserted troops do their job
It can still do it's job, somewhat. It can still engage targets.
Can't hold the ground.
Yes, and if you try to hold anything with other than infantry you are in a world of trouble. Something Germans found out as Barbarossa progressed, you can't hold the encirclement ring if you are short on infantry
Key word being support.
Yes, and in that they are a tool that gets infantry to a desired point. If they are so good at holding ground as you seem to claim why the fuck do you need them to deploy infantry in the first place? If they can do the job themselves why bother with using other elements?
They can fire at enemy.
Tanks can carry it. And since crew doesn't have to keep their eyes on equipemnt at all times they have time to rest and eat.
Support, yes. Not primary ground holding weapons, but supporting elements actually doing that job.
Let me ask you all a question. In august 1990 when Iraq seemed to be poised to invade Saudi Arabia after invading Kuwait why did US plan on deploying US airborne troops and airpower to stop Iraqis. your arguments would indicate airpower alone would do the job, so why deploy elite, light infantry units which US expected to be either massacred or suffer high casualties.
Cook
Banned
So for the basis of your argument you have to resort to an example prior to the invention of the helicopter?
Pretty much undermines your argument, especially since your example is based on a false premise anyway.