If the ukie war has shown us anything it that's tanks aren't effective against a combined force of drones, manpads, and mines. The proliferation of tanks by Germany lead to the idea of blitzkrieg. That age seems to have passed. What's the next method of blitzkrieg with modern systems? Is the soldier on the ground doing most of the work going to be the norm in taking ground?
was this thread worth the ban?
Why would I be banned? The ukie conflict has shown western and russian tank offensives get stopped in their tracks when you arm infantry with enough manpads and have enough drones in the air. I don't see how any of this is off topic for the board. This isn't reddit where you get banned for wrongthink by asking questions that go against a political narrative.
>manpads
Stop that
Also, infantry with ATGMs might be able to knock out tanks but at the end of the day they're still squishy targets that are slowed down by having to lump around 20+kg missile launchers.
As always, tanks and infantry working in concert will always have the upper hand against dug in infantry. You aren't going to stick your head up long enough to fire your Kornet when there's machine gun fire lashing right over your trench.
Technology has also had the effect of making tanks more lethal. Programmable HE shells can detonate precisely above trenches or foxholes.
>stopped in their tracks
Banned for what?
Tanks never have been effective against enemy combined arms when you yourself lack that, moron. Blitzkrieg is based on combined arms, guess how close to the opposite of that it is when you drive into a non-recce'd minefield without further support of any kind?
>What's the next method of blitzkrieg with modern systems?
reinforced heavy division
composed of 3 ABCTs, which are composed of 3 companies of M1A2s, 3 companies of mechanized infantry and their brads, an armored cav company composed of mixed M3 brads and M1A2s, and associated engineering, sustainment, and artillery units
That sounds more like a brigade, or maybe a regimental combat team. Four battalions plus assorted add-on support units isn't a "reinforced heavy division."
>That sounds more like a brigade
oops, meant to say
division is made of 3 ABCTs, and each ABCT is made up of 3 battalions not companies
each battalion has 2 companies of tanks and 2 companies of mech infantry, and they mix them up in combined arms teams with the ratio of tanks to infantry depending on the mission profile
and the ABCTs cavalry are being removed from them and being moved up into their own squadron sized element with its own tank platoons
wrong
>manpads
What do man portable air defence systems have to do with tanks?
>proliferation of tanks by Germany
Try 20 years earlier, the first modern combined arms offensives were conducted by the British and French during the Hundred Days campaign in 1918 (arguably Cambrai in 1917 as well)
Also, tanks have always struggled against minefields. There's a reason German tanks didn't go right through the Maginot Line in 1940.
also isn't it like 2 hours too early for you guys to be posting these threads
They ruined her character in the new korra series.
Single fricking mom that basically hates her kids it's like how badly do they want to frick up everything.
At the very least they didn't make her a lesbian
They're still going to be used because nothing else does its job better. The existence of counters to something (in this case, MBTs) is not the same as that something being rendered obsolete. Otherwise we'd never use ground infantry because they just get shredded by fricking everything.
Ukie war has shown us again that tank needs ARMOR. Not just some tin can that can be passed as tank but real ARMOR that can TANK hits.
With modern development of ATGMs it means Active Protection Systems are mandatory part of the armor.
APS or bust!
Yeah, also announcing your counter offensive for months is litetally moronic thing to do.
>Leopard destroyed
>spammed constantly for a week straight, proof tanks are obsolete, end of the west
>T-90 destroyed
>just another monday
>T90
>one
39 of them have been destroyed and numerous captured and its still nothing. 1/3 of the Ka-52s destroyed. But 1 leapord and 5 Bradleys "destroyed" is some cripling defeat apparently. Despite the 35th thunderrunning behind that same area.
Bro wtf is happening in this vid lmao
Just jogging the noggin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_milk
Is the top flamingo regurgitating crop milk into the other one's brains? I can't tell if it's blood or milk (or both) but it looks like it has its beak pretty deep in there
>tanks aren't effective
good god im fricking tired of seeing this dogshit take
It's the same shill remaking the same thread
e-gas
>The proliferation of tanks by Germany lead to the idea of blitzkrieg
moron.
>What's the next method of blitzkrieg with modern systems?
Autonomous drone swarms dropping grenades with rainbow-coloured streamers and brightly coloured, toy-shaped anti personnel mines everywhere.
Lose contact with command? Doesn't matter, just keep mining everything.
No Child Left Alive is the only realistic strategy to ensure the permanent erasure of the enemy.
It's like people don't realise that unarmored walks across no mans land go even worse, what was bahkmut? Tanks are less impactful than ever, but that's because weapons are far ahead of armor, you still need the tanks (in correct combined arms fashion to leverage their strengths and minimise their weaknesses) to prosecute offensive action, even if offense is harder than defence.
5 IQ post. Tanks don't exist in a vacuum. The point of modern tanks like T90M, Leopard 2A6, M1A2SEPv3, Leclerk, Merkava Mk.4, etc is to annihilate other high end tanks.
Why do you want to annihilate other high end tanks? Because high end tanks annihilate every other AFV on the battlefield.
The only difference between a tank or any other AFV is how protected a tank is.
Protection exists, so it can hunt other AFVs, which may be even unarmored, but have a decent firepower, aka fire support vehicles.
Older vehicles have always been used to provide fire support, while newer - to hunt the former.
High end tank in a proper combined arms formaiton is the hardest combat unit to kill without committing a lot of resources.
>The proliferation of tanks by Germany lead to the idea of blitzkrieg. That age seems to have passed.
Germans were not moronic enough to drive TROUGH defensive lines - they drove around them - tanks in start of ww2 could be penetrated by anti armor rifles - tank is firepower, mobility, and protection - a way to quickly concentrate lots of firepower in one place to make a breakthrough - and not mobile bunkers to provide protection from enemy attack
this is demonstrably false. Yes, they drove around defenses one or two times in surprise attacks, but nazi german tank tactics were generally "penetrate defenses with intense force then turbo your way through around the rest of the defenses"
Yes, they are so ineffective that the Ukrainians have taken ground at a steady pace, killed hundreds of ziggers and outside deperate zigger propaganda suffered minimal casualties using them.
moron.
Drones, MANPADS and mines are all defensive in nature. You'll never be able to pursue an offensive campaign without armor. Yes they're will be losses, only very rarely does the attacking force not suffer more casualties than the defending force, but that's how war typically works.