How does tank doctrine differ across countries?

[Other Means]

I don't know much about this stuff so all this is guesswork

My impression though - and I'd love to hear more from anyone who knows - is that Soviet doctrine is not much changed from WWII. The tank is there to winkle infantry out of holes and to use numbers to overwhelm any AFV opposition. Hence lots of "cheap" tanks, large HE load-outs etc. To my mind this also needs less well trained infantry as they're mainly there to spot for the tanks.

Good doctrine - except maybe when the infantry has Javelins.

The US seems a lot more about establishing AFV vs AFV superiority. Hence the M1 and variants are heavily armoured forward with a large amount of AT ammo. This leads the infantry and arty to win the battlefield. That plus having a volunteer army means that they rely on very well trained and armed troops, with quick call-for-support.

Good doctrine - except when the support is busy elsewhere.

The British doctrine I don't know - but the Challenger is heavily armoured all round and AIUI is more "tuned" for shaped charge warhead weapons. Do they have a larger HE load-out? Is it more Soviet style with the tanks closer to the infantry? Is the call-for-support still on the WWII system of having an FO that "owns" the guns assigned?

So is it a little of A, a little of B?

Anyone know? Or would care to laugh about my conclusions?

[flamingknives]

British doctrine is fairly similar to US doctrine in terms of tank technology, although British tanks tend to favour armour over mobility in comparison, although the CR2 is no slouch, especially over rough terrain. It does feature a rifled gun rather than a smoothbore, enabling the use of HESH which, as a secondary nature, is much more effective against infantry than HEAT, especially dug-in infantry.

Not so sure on current artillery doctrine, but I do know that FOO come from the artillery regiments, but that other units can request fire as well.

[emcnally]

Well based off of experience. The Tank BN's loadout will be based on the type of unit expected to encounter. Usually platoons get cross attached also. For instance a tank company would assign its 3rd platoon to an infantry company and that infantry company would cross attach its 3rd platoon to the tank company.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

It all depends on what countries you're talking about and the scale of the conflict. It seemed when Ethiopia attacked into Somalia some time within the last year they used a tank-heavy initial force for shock effect. Its more intimidating to see five T55s appear on the far ridgeline than five Toyota trucks with conscript troops in back. Israel had about the same idea when they tried to push into Lebanon but the AT assets arrayed against them blunted the tank's intimidation factor. I understand in Iraq these days U.S. tanks have to get an official okay from higher-up before firing its big cannon in a fight. It almost doesn't make a difference how competent warfighting machines your tanks are, the sheer moral effect (on your side as well as the other) is often worth its weight in gold.