infantry vs tank- who will win?
Just before I head off to sleep, I think I might try writing about this little hypothetical argument Hari brought forward the other night. I think it all started from some guy who mentioned to Hari that small arms fire can destroy a tank (like in Red Alert 2)
In a nutshell, who will win? WWII, 5 US paratroopers vs 1 Panzer tank (Panther or Tiger, makes no real difference except the Tiger has thicker armour and a big Flak 88)
Hari's version: Of the 5 infantry, 3 have M1 Garands, 1 has the Thompson, and 1 has the .30 MG. They do not have grenades, as they "used them all up the night before in some drunken bonfire". No mines, or anti tank weapons.
THe tank is in an open area and there is decent cover all around it. The infantry are in the cover. We discussed about wooded areas, but this can also apply to a town scenario.
BLAU! There was a heavy emphasis on the tank being able to waste large amounts of shells to eliminate 5 soldiers who can't do much but run.
The analysis: This is basically figures, nothing specified about where they are and who found who first. No grenades is a little strange, but sticking to Hari's restrictions, the 5 paratroopers have little hope of destroying the tank. Why? The 5 can't do much against it except circle around it until they can't be seen from the little portholes, mount the tank, pop the hatch and since they have no grenades, shoot the crew inside?
My version: The paratroopers had to have grenades with them. How the hell would they have used it all up? If we consider grenades to be precious, tactical, commodities they wouldn't have been used up completely. Now, 5 soldiers vs 1 tank. What's the reason behind it all? Are they going to charge at each other shooting away like crazy people? No. It's got to be more like 5 soldiers walk around the corner of a building to see an idling tank waiting for them, or the other way round where 5 soldiers were ordered to destroy a tank approaching via a road. Or something along those lines. If both were the case, then there would be more units involved.
Tank is waiting. 5 soldiers, 1 tank can still apply here. If the soldiers were in a high state of alert, checking every single corner, they probably would have avoided death by hail of bullets. At this point, after checking the corner and spotting the tank and ducking back behind the corner, the tank could fire a shell and spell the end for the squad. If not, they still stand a chance as they would be able to circle around the tank.
Tank is ambushed. Why the hell would one tank be approaching a certain place unaccompanied? It would more likely be assisting alongside other armour and a platoon of infantry, a platoon being 16-44 soldiers*. Since the opposing side now has more vehicles to deal with, plus a platoon of soldiers, I guess the number of paratroopers and equipment have to be re-evaluated. Let's boost their numbers to a full platoon as well. If we look at Sunzi's Art of War, we can see that the paratroopers have the possible advantage of being in an advantageous location where they can have make full use of the situation.
Equipment. Command ain't going to send out ill equipped men to take on a bunch of tanks and infantry. But we can't give the platoon any support. So assume that the platoon carries some mortars or bazookas, or mines for that matter, chances are the paratroopers will win, but probably with heavy casualties.
In a nutshell. It all boils down to which leader is smarter.
But, what do you think? You define and establish the restrictions/variables and your opinion on who will win.
*(http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blchancommand.htm)
posted by Silent Jay @ 12:53 am
0 comments
