Description
The evolution of the tank and its employment on the battlefield has epitomized the elements of shock, firepower and mobility virtually since its introduction in World War 1. Some experts have even stated that it “has dominated the battlefield since World War II.” (A6:54) A general review of such ostensibly professional publications as “Military Review” “Army” “Infantry” and others since the mid-1960’s reveals that a significant amount of literature has been devoted to the use of and defense against tanks, particularly in the European environment. “The geographical center and also the key bastion of Western defense is indeed Central Europe.” (C11:43) The threat to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in this area is the Warsaw Pact under the auspices of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Other unclassified sources present an even more illuminating comparison. The assumption is made that NATO forces have many qualitatively superior weapons; but that numerically there are some significant differences particularly in the tank comparisons. (A5: 90) It was because of this numerical advantage that Mr. Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army from 1965 through 1971 noted in his testimony before Congress that the “…NATO forces can never hope to match the massive armored forces of the Warsaw Pact in numbers alone.” He went on to place special emphasis on getting the tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided (TOW) heavy anti-tank missile into the hands of the troops as soon as possible. It was visualized that this weapon would be used both in the offensive and defensive roles and would be employed by men on the ground, mounted on ground vehicles and on aircraft. (C17:125) Even though some progress has been perceived in the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) and the mutual balanced force reductions (MBFR) talks, the significant threat that the tanks of Warsaw Pact pose to the security of NATO is still a valid one.
