[Mass Combat] A civilization without Armour units (and similar variations)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Against whom and in what terrain?

Throughout TLs 7-9 on non-jungle and non-broken-cliffs terrains.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Throughout TLs 7-9 on non-jungle and non-broken-cliffs terrains.

Then go with a lack of fuel. There's no good reason for tanks NOT to exist at TL7-9 otherwise. Tanks existed to restore tactical and strategic mobility in a situation where it had evaporated, and the previous methods(cavalry) were stymied by the new technologies(barbed wire, and machine guns). Without barbed wire, you can probably have horse mobility. With it? No chance.

[acrosome]

Is this an alternate history question, or a real life modern warfare question?

Because if the latter, well, there are a lot of examples to study of armored forces fighting a group who has no armor. Libya invading Chad- aka the Toyota War- comes to mind. Countless guerrilla wars, including Vietnam (though you said non-jungle). The Falklands conflict would be a good one- there were some light armor present but they played an extremely minor role.

If the former, then the other side won't have armor either, eh? Then, again, we have a historical example- the result of a Great Power conflict might be endless attrition warfare as in WWI, unless you allow advanced airpower and artillery that makes concentrating forces in one line suicidal. In such a case warfare becomes one monumental skirmish line and mobile warfare might be possible. Maybe someone would try to pattern-bomb the enemy's front with B52s or something. Chemical warfare might look more attractive, to make up for the lack of shock effect from the armor and allow one to punch through the opposing lines. Of course, the Falklands might be a good example, here, too, in a more restrained war.

P.S. Tanks aren't being used in Afghanistan, but armor is, in the form of MRAPs.

P.P.S. Air power has another advantage. Yes, the cost per ton delivered is higher than artillery, but airpower has a range a hell of a lot farther than 30km! Plus, you can put a very concentrated tonnage on a small target, aka hitting C3 targets, hardened buildings, etc. The cost per ton of a cruise missile remains much more than air power, at least in recent US conflicts were attrition of aircraft was low.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Is this an alternate history question, or a real life modern warfare question?

Mostly a real life/playtest/realitycheck question inspired by an old setting idea (right now dead, but might be reanimated later). Basically, I wonder how a nation would fare in TL7-TL9 warfare (assuming it faces nations of same TL and comparable size/military budget) if it never had Armour (Tank) technology. As in, no heavily armoured tracked vehicles with big cannons.