URBAN ARMOR!
it’s a well-worn canard of armchair tacticians to asset that “tanks do poorly in urban combat,” but is that necessarily true? what is really being argued? should tanks sit parked on the outskirts of an urban battle?
a short thread debunking this tired maxim:
it’s a well-worn canard of armchair tacticians to asset that “tanks do poorly in urban combat,” but is that necessarily true? what is really being argued? should tanks sit parked on the outskirts of an urban battle?
a short thread debunking this tired maxim:
where does this idea come from?
tanks, from their outset, were designed to withstand enemy fire and destroy hard points, while also being mobile enough to exploit breakthroughs in the front. armor, firepower, and mobility is the balanced trinity of good tank design.
tanks, from their outset, were designed to withstand enemy fire and destroy hard points, while also being mobile enough to exploit breakthroughs in the front. armor, firepower, and mobility is the balanced trinity of good tank design.
the tank excels in the plains, where it can take full advantage of the armor plating providing its own cover, the main armament reaching its maximum effective range, and mobility to maneuver effectively over flat terrain.
the urban environment couldn’t be more different.
the urban environment couldn’t be more different.
urban environments channelize armored vehicles, limiting them to streets and alleys, moreso with the ever-present wreckage, rubble, and intentional barricade. buildings obstruct sight lines, and also enable enemies to attack at the vehicle’s weakest points, the top and the rear.
given the severe terrain/design mismatch, wouldn’t it be foolish to employ armor in a city? not true! in reality, the use of armor is critical to successful urban operations. stalingrad, aachen, hue city, n. ireland, rimadi, aleppo, mosul all REQUIRED armored vehicles.
wars aren’t minmaxed best case scenarios, but sets of objectives each full of tactical problems. the key to holding territory, the infantry, is just as vulnerable in cities as any other, and armor provides solutions. you fight with what you have and make use of what you can.
armor can destroy fortified positions that most infantry weapons can’t crack, and likewise can withstand those same weapons. they can provide rolling cover to patrols within the city, and act as their own fortified position, with the advantage of being able to be repositioned.
armor is much more vulnerable within a city, but infantry is worse off without it. fighting an urban battle is bloody, confusing, and extremely dangerous, so any asset that can multiply the survivability and effectiveness of the infantry is by definition good for operations.
the conflict in the ukraine has birthed a deluge of ignorance regarding the nature of modern warfighting, and having a clear perspective necessitates critical thinking and reasoned analysis, not regurgitated talking points.
remember this as we watch the coming battles unfold!
remember this as we watch the coming battles unfold!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
