View Single Post
Old 10-09-2020, 09:49 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070

Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Is this a rhetorical question? During the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Israelis suffered shocking, unexpected tank losses/crew casualties as a result of Egyptian AT-2 Sagger ATGMs (making their combat debut). Tank losses on the Suez front were so heavy that the Israelis practically begged the USA for replacement tanks. Their experience in 1973 led to the development of the home-grown Merkava MBT, which put an emphasis on crew survivability.
...and yet they still won.
Against near impossible odds.

The point is the ATGM did not make tanks obsolete, and the best counter to missiles wasn't increasing armour or doing away with armour entirely, it was changing overall tactics, ensuring tanks did not operate without infantry, artillery and air support.

The development of new tanks would have happened anyway as metallurgy improved, engines became more reliable, powerful, more fuel efficient, and a host of other technological advances. Missiles were not the cause of tank evolution, they were just one part of it.
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote