I posted in another thread, but T72, Abrams, Leopard, Challenger... it matters not how advanced they are when the anti tank missile hits them. And the range on the Russian Kornet anti tank missile is 5km, well beyond the tank's effective firing range. Tanks are obsolete.
Only it matters a whole lot, givne russian shitboxes will spectacularily explode and kill their entire crew, while western tanks will at worst suffer limited damage and keep their crew safe.
>muh Kornet
Garbage.
>well beyond the tank's effective firing range
Tanks can effectively engage targets at 5km. Modern western tanks, that is.
>No shit, it's time to replace the volume reserved for humans with armor and ai just like in my iron man movies with tony stark!!!!
that's nice kid now back to reality
Western tanks aren’t infallible just because they were designed to save the crew more often than not. They are better for that very reason, but casualties will still occur
APS does seem to have worked on kornets for the israelis, although I'd still agree that the cold war style MBT is obsolete. They're just stronger WWII tanks, compared with the revolution that fighter design went through since then. I'd expect the next gen of main battle tanks to be some kind of tank/spg hybrid that shoots accurately while moving and has enough armor and APS to protect it against ATGMS and autocannons, but doesn't try to pretend it can stop a 120mm tungsten sabot. The direct fire only bumrush vehicles should be cheap and unmanned.
So the purpose of the Leopard 2 is not to achieve success on the battlefield, but to be destroyed and taken out of action in order to protect the crew?
I don't know what you were expecting, a forcefield or them being utterly impervious to all harm?
Best we can do this day and age is protect the crew because believe it or not, experienced crew is worth more than a tank
So instead of designing a tank with adequate protection (APS + ERA at minimum, this has been known for +30 years), it's better to let the tank blow up, and have the wounded crew crawl over 4 km of no man's land under artillery fire and through minefields?
How is that even remotely survivable?
It's not like you can drive an ambulance up to the burning tank...
So instead of designing a tank with adequate protection (APS + ERA at minimum, this has been known for +30 years), it's better to let the tank blow up, and have the wounded crew crawl over 4 km of no man's land under artillery fire and through minefields?
How is that even remotely survivable?
It's not like you can drive an ambulance up to the burning tank...
I can't handle all of these new moronic /k/opes.
Except no tank can survive being hit with large bore artillery directly, you subhuman mouthbreather.
It’s like saying that ceramic body armor plates are a stupid waste of money because there’s a video of a guy getting shot in the head wearing one.
Maybe if you’re losing hundreds or thousands like the Russians are doing of certain armored vehicles you can begin to analyze their performance but even then the data is going to be tainted by the poor deployment of them, crews etc
>T90
An old T72 with a few upgrades >Leo2
1979 tank with a few upgrades
No, they are not shit. Tank as a concept is SHIT. Metal death traps designed to eat molten metal lances and maybe survive
I guess it's just a more subtle attempt at "muh bothsides"
>hurr durr le both side le bad
no, I just understand both sides are mongol rape baby subhumans >but ur pic says le russians!
same people who live 15 minutes away got raped by the same mongols lmao. Dont compare them to westerners who can actually do SEAD & DEAD aswell as competent combined arms operations you fricking cretin
he was wrong about how to go about liberating europe.
he wanted to immediately start another war against an enemy who's war machine was now actually in full gear.
It would have made ww2 casualties and destruction look like a small in comparison.
we did indeed succeed in liberating europe, it took 45~ years which was the price to pay, but most would argue that this price was much better than what it would have cost through outright warfare.
Both are Post-Soviet armies with many commanders who were taught to fight in a 20th century conflict.
Zaluzhnyi is a protege of Gerasimov, and it shows in how they prepare their defensive systems against one another. Tanks, Artillery, and limited air operations are characteristics of both armies because it’s how they’re built. Overall, they can be quite inflexible to a point of absurdity for western observers (Russia is absolutely worse in this regard). Drone warfare has made it harder to be a tank, but both armies don’t seem to care about that fact.
Because I doubt before this war you knew or cared about the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. I bet I could play you a song in each language and you couldn't tell the difference because wouldn't you be able to tell the difference. I'm sick and fricking tired of this Slavic cheerleading, we should've glassed everything east of Berlin when we had the chance (sparing the Czechs and Slovakians course)
Black folk b***hing about wypipo cuz they wanna be like, mutts b***hing about slavs/latino e.t.c cuz they don't know who they really are. it's hard to identify when you got whole world and race admixture, probably that's why they strongly promote gender bullshit, you know everyone has a strong need to identify and belong, if you belong nowhere we'll...
YES tanks are overrated by normies and /k/. When they’re slotted in with a strong force doctrine, training and supporting elements they rule the battlefield. If you drive them through minefields with only basic mine-clearing support while exposing themselves to ATGM and arty fire then they’re much less effective.
What are you even supposed to do in this position when you don't have air superiority. Seems like you're gonna take some pretty heavy loses if you wanna move forward.
>Tank hits mine and throws a track >TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank gets hit on top armour the top by drone assisted artillery >TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank gets knocked out by weapon designed for knocking out tanks >TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank with no infantry support gets knocked out by infantry >TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank with no AA or air support gets knocked out by heli or CAS >TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
Do you think it's video games that have ruined people's perceptions of what tanks are supposed to do in war? I swear everyone just thinks you're supposed to drift at the enemy and bounce everything.
I blame the Russians for TANK STRONK. I also blame the west for having enough air support you could walk from the airfield to the combat area without touching the ground.
>Invention of the AT rifle
Oh no tanks are obsolete >Invention of the shaped charge
Oh no tanks are obsolete >Invention of ATGM's
Oh no tanks are obsolete >Attack helis mounted with ATGM's
Oh no tanks are obsolete
Someone needs to make mental gymnastic a competitive sport, as in competition to make the most moronic argument seem vaguely plausible and delivered with a straight face.
The top 3 get the prize of a merciful bullet to the head before the whole bunch of contestants gets drowned in a vat of acid.
>Are modern tanks overrated?
It's never been a secret that any tank hit in the right spot with a big enough gun will be destroyed. Once anybody who is smart enough to grasp that very simple fact, they will realize there is no such thing as any wunderwaffen tank that is invincible.
The Gulf War really skewed people's perceptions. During the Cold War combat assumptions were that the tank forces of both sides would last about a week at most, even following the shift to composite armour in the 80s.
>Tanks are said to be obsolete from the end of WW1
There is nothing on the battlefield right now that can replace the capabilities of a modern MBT on the battlefield. Nothing else can give you close fire support with such a high level of protection of the crew,
All we can do is to try and make the survivability onion's layers more effective,
People don't want to hear this but tanks in their current role and form are obsolete. If all it takes is to strap one RPG charge on an Alibaba drone to destroy your multi million dollar war machine it's just not good enough anymore
>took a few losses in an offensive operation >crew survived >already dragged back to depot for repairs >that clearly means it's as bad as the post-soviet shit that still uses its turret as an AA option
I posted in another thread, but T72, Abrams, Leopard, Challenger... it matters not how advanced they are when the anti tank missile hits them. And the range on the Russian Kornet anti tank missile is 5km, well beyond the tank's effective firing range. Tanks are obsolete.
Humans are obsolete because guns exist.
Do you know how dumb you sound? the existence of a counter doesn't mean its obsolete.
Only it matters a whole lot, givne russian shitboxes will spectacularily explode and kill their entire crew, while western tanks will at worst suffer limited damage and keep their crew safe.
>muh Kornet
Garbage.
>well beyond the tank's effective firing range
Tanks can effectively engage targets at 5km. Modern western tanks, that is.
>Tanks are obsolete.
No. Russians are obsolete.
No shit, it's time to replace the volume reserved for humans with armor and ai. We need armored assault vehicles, just not manned ones
Oh it's the hohol shills again
go back to your shithole board gay
>No shit, it's time to replace the volume reserved for humans with armor and ai just like in my iron man movies with tony stark!!!!
that's nice kid now back to reality
isn't that the opposite of iron man?
you do know most of the volume of Tony's suits is Tony... right?
>Garbage.
The Kornet has a longer range and comperable armor penetration to the TOW.
>Tanks can effectively engage targets at 5km. Modern western tanks, that is.
So can the Kornet. Certain Kornet variants can engage targets at 10 km.
>No. Russians are obsolete.
???
Western tanks aren’t infallible just because they were designed to save the crew more often than not. They are better for that very reason, but casualties will still occur
APS does seem to have worked on kornets for the israelis, although I'd still agree that the cold war style MBT is obsolete. They're just stronger WWII tanks, compared with the revolution that fighter design went through since then. I'd expect the next gen of main battle tanks to be some kind of tank/spg hybrid that shoots accurately while moving and has enough armor and APS to protect it against ATGMS and autocannons, but doesn't try to pretend it can stop a 120mm tungsten sabot. The direct fire only bumrush vehicles should be cheap and unmanned.
>expose
Except it didn't? It showed on how survivable western tanks are for the crew than Russian tanks.
So the purpose of the Leopard 2 is not to achieve success on the battlefield, but to be destroyed and taken out of action in order to protect the crew?
Loving these fresh new /k/opes.
I don't know what you were expecting, a forcefield or them being utterly impervious to all harm?
Best we can do this day and age is protect the crew because believe it or not, experienced crew is worth more than a tank
So instead of designing a tank with adequate protection (APS + ERA at minimum, this has been known for +30 years), it's better to let the tank blow up, and have the wounded crew crawl over 4 km of no man's land under artillery fire and through minefields?
How is that even remotely survivable?
It's not like you can drive an ambulance up to the burning tank...
I can't handle all of these new moronic /k/opes.
Who's red?
Except no tank can survive being hit with large bore artillery directly, you subhuman mouthbreather.
It’s like saying that ceramic body armor plates are a stupid waste of money because there’s a video of a guy getting shot in the head wearing one.
Maybe if you’re losing hundreds or thousands like the Russians are doing of certain armored vehicles you can begin to analyze their performance but even then the data is going to be tainted by the poor deployment of them, crews etc
That's the point of this thread, there currently are no "overpowered" tanks when each tank defensively are vulnerable to ATGM or top down attacks.
So all Russian tanks are supposed to explode and kill the crew and be completely useless cannon fodder on tracks?
>T90
An old T72 with a few upgrades
>Leo2
1979 tank with a few upgrades
No, they are not shit. Tank as a concept is SHIT. Metal death traps designed to eat molten metal lances and maybe survive
Vatniks like to expose themselves to children. Many such cases
>slavs using tanks in the most braindead way possible means modern tank le bad
>muh slavs
I've never understood this whole angle of Indian shilling
I guess it's just a more subtle attempt at "muh bothsides"
Makes sense.
>muh bothsides
>>DAE le both sides????!!!
>Every day. Every fricking day.
It's a based position since it makes NAFO/zigger troons seethe so hard
>troony obsessed
>le baste
You're a chemically imbalanced fatchild screeching for attention. You will never fit in.
based = bald and suffering erectile dysfunction
/pol/troons are obsessed with trannies because they all have manboos and sound like my aunt Beulah.
>hurr durr le both side le bad
no, I just understand both sides are mongol rape baby subhumans
>but ur pic says le russians!
same people who live 15 minutes away got raped by the same mongols lmao. Dont compare them to westerners who can actually do SEAD & DEAD aswell as competent combined arms operations you fricking cretin
Patton was right about literally everything and based as all frick no wonder they killed him
he was wrong about how to go about liberating europe.
he wanted to immediately start another war against an enemy who's war machine was now actually in full gear.
It would have made ww2 casualties and destruction look like a small in comparison.
we did indeed succeed in liberating europe, it took 45~ years which was the price to pay, but most would argue that this price was much better than what it would have cost through outright warfare.
Both are Post-Soviet armies with many commanders who were taught to fight in a 20th century conflict.
Zaluzhnyi is a protege of Gerasimov, and it shows in how they prepare their defensive systems against one another. Tanks, Artillery, and limited air operations are characteristics of both armies because it’s how they’re built. Overall, they can be quite inflexible to a point of absurdity for western observers (Russia is absolutely worse in this regard). Drone warfare has made it harder to be a tank, but both armies don’t seem to care about that fact.
Because I doubt before this war you knew or cared about the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. I bet I could play you a song in each language and you couldn't tell the difference because wouldn't you be able to tell the difference. I'm sick and fricking tired of this Slavic cheerleading, we should've glassed everything east of Berlin when we had the chance (sparing the Czechs and Slovakians course)
Black folk b***hing about wypipo cuz they wanna be like, mutts b***hing about slavs/latino e.t.c cuz they don't know who they really are. it's hard to identify when you got whole world and race admixture, probably that's why they strongly promote gender bullshit, you know everyone has a strong need to identify and belong, if you belong nowhere we'll...
you have a decent chance walking away from a mission killed leo 2 at least.
>DAE le both sides????!!!
Every day. Every fricking day.
No it's just ukrops who can't into air superiority
>war
>shit gets destroyed
>oh no tanks are obsolete
So obsolete that both sides are constantly sourcing new units.
YES tanks are overrated by normies and /k/. When they’re slotted in with a strong force doctrine, training and supporting elements they rule the battlefield. If you drive them through minefields with only basic mine-clearing support while exposing themselves to ATGM and arty fire then they’re much less effective.
I thought they had decent mine clearing support and what they lacked was artillery suppression, which was done by air power in western militaries.
>using tanks against prepared defense in depth withouth air superiority in the AO
I'd say this was more of a failure in execution, training, and planning rather than raw hardware as a factor for combat power.
What are you even supposed to do in this position when you don't have air superiority. Seems like you're gonna take some pretty heavy loses if you wanna move forward.
>Tank hits mine and throws a track
>TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank gets hit on top armour the top by drone assisted artillery
>TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank gets knocked out by weapon designed for knocking out tanks
>TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank with no infantry support gets knocked out by infantry
>TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
>Tank with no AA or air support gets knocked out by heli or CAS
>TANKS ARE OBSOLETE
Do you think it's video games that have ruined people's perceptions of what tanks are supposed to do in war? I swear everyone just thinks you're supposed to drift at the enemy and bounce everything.
I blame the Russians for TANK STRONK. I also blame the west for having enough air support you could walk from the airfield to the combat area without touching the ground.
>having enough air support you could walk from the airfield to the combat area without touching the ground.
lol, that's pretty good.
>Invention of the AT rifle
Oh no tanks are obsolete
>Invention of the shaped charge
Oh no tanks are obsolete
>Invention of ATGM's
Oh no tanks are obsolete
>Attack helis mounted with ATGM's
Oh no tanks are obsolete
>Literally thousandths of Vatnik tanks destroyed
>Several Leopards destroyed
buu.. buuu.. but your tanks are as shit is ours!!!
I love Russians and their ability to do mental gymnastics, only second to their ability in actual Olympic gymnastics.
Someone needs to make mental gymnastic a competitive sport, as in competition to make the most moronic argument seem vaguely plausible and delivered with a straight face.
The top 3 get the prize of a merciful bullet to the head before the whole bunch of contestants gets drowned in a vat of acid.
No, but they are supposed to be expendable same as any military vehicles that are physically in the fight
Anti drone point defense systems will also serve as anti missile point defense systems.
Toyota with TOW2 is peak performance and MICs can't cope
How was the Leopard 2 exposed? It handled itself better than the Soviet shit.
It got obliterated in Turkey/Syria or something like that by lightly armed rebels.
>tanks gets taken out
>EXPOSED
Looks like we should abandon tanks altogether lads!
1 leopard tank was destroyed, I am now demoralised sirs, bad morning
>Are modern tanks overrated?
It's never been a secret that any tank hit in the right spot with a big enough gun will be destroyed. Once anybody who is smart enough to grasp that very simple fact, they will realize there is no such thing as any wunderwaffen tank that is invincible.
The Gulf War really skewed people's perceptions. During the Cold War combat assumptions were that the tank forces of both sides would last about a week at most, even following the shift to composite armour in the 80s.
>Tanks are said to be obsolete from the end of WW1
There is nothing on the battlefield right now that can replace the capabilities of a modern MBT on the battlefield. Nothing else can give you close fire support with such a high level of protection of the crew,
All we can do is to try and make the survivability onion's layers more effective,
Abrams got exposed in Yemen but Americans blamed crew for the frick ups.
And the same will happen in Ukraine.
People don't want to hear this but tanks in their current role and form are obsolete. If all it takes is to strap one RPG charge on an Alibaba drone to destroy your multi million dollar war machine it's just not good enough anymore
>took a few losses in an offensive operation
>crew survived
>already dragged back to depot for repairs
>that clearly means it's as bad as the post-soviet shit that still uses its turret as an AA option
I put the He-man perk on my Challenger