>Goes into forests
>Can't get past the trees
>Goes into the mountains
>Can't get up the incline
>Goes into any region where it rains
>Gets stuck in the mud
>Goes into any region with a river
>Too heavy for the bridges
>Goes into the desert
>Gets stuck in the sand
Tanks seem to only be good for dry, flat steppes, so why do they get so emphasized in modern warfare and why do we maintain such massive tank legions? Wouldn't it make more sense to design a vehicle to operate in all terrain?
>Goes into forests
>Can't get past the trees
this isnt WW1 where tanks cant pass through forests
the heavily forested ardennes saw heavy use of tanks
>into the mountains
>Can't get up the incline
tracks can handle inclines better than wheels thanks to greater traction
>Goes into any region where it rains
>Gets stuck in the mud
tracks handle mud better than wheels
its what sparked their creation, when someone saw a tractor going over mud that could stop a car in WW1
>Goes into any region with a river
>Too heavy for the bridges
OPs pick of an M10 booker weights about 40 tons which can go over hastily made pontoon bridges or any bridge rated over cargo
it couldnt cross a wooden bridge, but those dont have the capacity to support a dozen trucks needed to sustain a campaign anyways
>Goes into the desert
>Gets stuck in the sand
trucks needed roads beaten out for them to cross the deserts of tunisia when tanks were able to maneuver easily
>Wouldn't it make more sense to design a vehicle to operate in all terrain?
you mean like a tracked vehicle with a high-horsepower engine?
>the heavily forested ardennes saw heavy use of tanks
It was an extremely risky move though.
>tracks can handle inclines better than wheels thanks to greater traction
But not better than legs. You won't see a tank going up a 70 degree incline or climbing a cliff anytime soon.
>tracks handle mud better than wheels
But do they handle mud better than legs?
>OPs pick of an M10 booker weights about 40 tons which can go over hastily made pontoon bridges or any bridge rated over cargo
Feels like it should be amphibious, or watertight so it can go underwater.
>you mean like a tracked vehicle with a high-horsepower engine?
In this case I was thinking more of a legged vehicle.
Look anon i get it, the infantry is the center of everything, but Goddammit support of any kind is much appreciated
>But do they handle mud better than legs?
Yes, that's how ground pressure works. You'd get stuck in mud on foot that an MT-LB can swim through.
>Vehicles can't go everywhere a human can reach on foot
Someone write the pentagon. We have to de-motorize the infantry and return to mule-based logistics.
Didn't our infantry already use mules and horses in Afghanistan?
>But do they handle mud better than legs?
Yes, retard-kun.
Just seems like if you get stuck in mud with a legged vehicle, it can just pull its leg out (or hop over the muddy terrain entirely) while a tracked vehicle would get mud in all its gears and sink.
>a legged vehicle
Why wouldn't it work? We're already working on stuff like it, see
Now this is good bait.
>or hop
oh it's you, can you please go back to /m/
What sort of dumbfuck comment is this?
OP has decided his answer is mechs and everything is cope from there to make it somehow not a stupid idea.
>But not better than legs.
Try mounting 60 tons on legs, see how well they move.
>You won't see a tank going up a 70 degree incline or climbing a cliff anytime soon.
You won't be seeing OP climbing that either so what's the problem.
>>Goes into forests
Just fells the trees by sheer force, uses logging or comparable roads.
>>Goes into the mountains
Is among the most off-road capable vehicles on the planet. Has shown several times in mil history that it's able to cross mointain ranges. Surprise, Frenchies, we're going through the Ardennes.
>>Goes into any region where it rains
Can move where wheeled vehicles can't thanks to the much lower ground pressure per area.
>>Goes into any region with a river
>>Too heavy for the bridges
Is either able to swim or deep wade. Also isn't much heavier than most fully loaded 40 wheelers who can cross bridges just fine.
>>Goes into the desert
>>Gets stuck in the sand
Just as seen dozens of times between WW1 and the 2003 Iraq invasion
2/10 very low effort
>Tanks seem to only be good for dry, flat steppes, so why do they get so emphasized in modern warfare and why do we maintain such massive tank legions? Wouldn't it make more sense to design a vehicle to operate in all terrain?
Besides overstating a lot of the obstacles a tanks faces on rough terrain and not mentioning the supporting units that can help get them through like combat engineers, it's cause the most people don't live in the mountains and forests. They live in the cities which are big population, transportation, industrial and resource hubs and the most important thing to capture during a war. Any big population center that didn't have lots of vehicle access would be very weird.
Tanks aren't good in urban terrain either though. They're extremely easy to ambush by infantry.
Tanks do NOT do well on flat open terrain. They'll get massacred by missiles/artillery miles away.
Ironically enough, tanks do well in terrain where there's SOME cover like hills.
I don't understand where people get the idea that tanks rule on the open field.
Because what the fuck else are you gonna use in open terrain? Everything else gets slaughtered even harder.
drones
You can't hold territory with a drone. It's like trying to hold territory with a missile.
>Tanks do NOT do well on flat open terrain. They'll get massacred by missiles/artillery miles away.
on flat open terrain, they can use their mobility to their fullest extent and simply maneuver around enemy missiles
and enemy ATGMs are themselves deprived of cover and easily defeated by artillery
>I don't understand where people get the idea that tanks rule on the open field.
because thats where they work best
allies immediately got the upper hand over the germans after breaking out of the enclosed bocage and into more open ground where their tanks had room to maneuver in
Why does this pos cost $13 million?
13M is the LRIP cost for the first 100 units
price is obviously going to drop thanks to economy of scale for the next 1900 units
For 40 tons it should have had a 120mm gun and autoloader.
>trees
>stopping tanks
?si=QC3fzHVDBD9QNyMV
tanks are offensive weapons - you choose where and when they are used - to amass enough firepower to make a breakthrough - other uses (apart of suppressing civilian demonstrations) are retarded and a waste of resources.
Booker is suitable for all those irregular terrain concerns.
>most tank rounds expended on HE against AT positions or in direct fire support to infantry in WW2
Booker frees up Abrams to to actual tip of the spear breakthrough and exploitation things
>HE: faster, cheaper, more > slower radically pricier ATGMs et. al.
Big fuckoff guns forward deployed and embedded with infantry that isn't constantly calling fire mission over kill on pill boxes and such will always be useful, even in urban environments. Booker will provide overmatch against other mech infantry that only have autocanons as well.
>why does infantry exist: the post
Infantry can't go 80 mph.
>No armor
>Smaller cannon
>Still well over 40 tons
How