"How do you fight a Tank?

Mr. N.C. Ranger

Thanks for mentioning what you posted above.

I hope that I didnt troubled anyone with my post, I believe that this intention was clear enough from the begining.
Anyhow, not to trouble anyone, I edited my previous post, in that manner that no one can be offensed/troubled about any of my words regarding military materials.

If Mr. Hadrian consider the same way as me or not, I'm sorry but I can't help in this direction.

Also, if one of administrators of this site consider any of my words in this topic not to be according to the regulations or law, please delete anything you consider necesary.

If I was wrong, I'm sorry.

With respect,B.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on July 15, 2007 02:02 pm

The most effectiv AT gun was the Flak 18,36,37 that was the real tank killer on all fronts,that gun can destroy any allied tank within 2 km,a gun with pin-point accuracy for that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_mm_gun
(o intrebare: De ce nu scrieti romaneste? inteleg ca suntem un forum multinational dar oricum suntem romani)

we speak in english so people who can't speak romanian to be able to share/learn about romanian army or other subjects (this was the wish of the owners of this site/forum)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DIN TARA MOTILOR EU AM VENIT!

I have deleted two posts. Hadrian and 21inf, I hope you understand why. You can continue your discussion in private if you wish.

Detasamentul Paulis, please familiarize yourself with the forum guidelines. Thank you.

I understand, n.p. T(h)anks!

Gentlemen,

This is a complex topic, but I'll try to simplify to the extent possible. My credentials are as a former tanker, including combat experince in Vietnam and testing armor equipment for the U.S. Army in the early '70's. I continue to be involved as an amateur historian and via my role with as moderator on an armor related internet forum and visit domestic and foreign military installations even today.

Infantry attacks on armor in WWII was far less complicated than it is today and you seem well aware of the means available and the history of how it was conducted. Most of those means are largely irrelevant on modern tanks and have been since at least the 1960's or thereabouts. Molotov cocktails, etc. and other improvised devices are not likely to yield results on modern tanks because they are better protected, better sealed (considerations of operating in chemical and nuclear environments had a lot to do with this), and less susceptable to such methods of attack.

On the other hand, the advent of man-portable armor-defeating weapons such as RPG's with compound warheads, "Milan" and similar AT missile systems (the modern "panzerfausts") give the infantry arm weapon systems a capability they did not have in WWII....standoff shooting ability. Running up and placing magnetic mines and throwing flame weapons is really not an option on the modern battlefield...tanks and other armored vehicles do not operate alone but in mutually-supporting roles and this opportunity would rarely arise. There exists a video of some insurgent in Iraq returning twice to place large plastic bags of explosive buckets of flammable liquids beneath a parked Bradley to good effect...but it's pretty clear that this vehicle has unwisely been left unmanned and exposed to what amounts to sabotage....not an infantry attack in a combat situation.

Modern armored vehicles are far more sophisticated vehicles built in far smaller numbers than their WWII counterparts. A lot of thought has gone into protecting them from casual as well as sophisticated methods of attack and even that evolves to meet the threat (the introduction of the TUSK, "Tank Urban Survival Kit" for the M1 Abrams in the current conflict is such an example, but even then, we're not really talking about an "infantry attack" in the conventional sense).

The greatest threat the modern regular infantry unit brings to bear against armor is the AT missile designed for just that purpose...everything else shrinks to insignificance by comparison. AT mines are really the province of the Engineers, in a conventional military and other than that, you have aviation, armor and artillery.

Mr. NDP,

You are very right about what you say and your military experience is felt in your wise words.

Just as an element of "curiosity", beeing drafted at infantry in year 2000, we were learned to fight with magnetic mines against tanks (no one told us about posible "Zimmerit" paste ).
I still have a pic from those days with a friend from the platoon waving such a magnetic mine (and paying a little attention to the pic I figured out that from 5 soldiers in the pic one could never put together a decent uniform giving the fact that 5 uniforms was in 10 different types of camouflage - 15 if we count the bonnets also ).
Also, of course to burry AT mines is combat engineers domain, but we were learned to do it instead of them

Sorry if I was repeating myself, but I couldnt stop laughing when I red Mr. NDP's post, which is very true and full of common sense regarding infantry modern warfare against tanks, laughing I say when I remembered our obsolete training regarding fight against tank. Our, let's say, "best" AT weapon was AG7(RPG).
It was missing only the soviet PTRD
Probably the tankmen were supose to die because of laughing when facing this kind of enemy infantry in the XXI century