I'll keep saying it. Tanks are obsolete.

I'll keep saying it. Tanks are obsolete.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but anon that's bait!
    Nineteen forty three and they already knew. Firepower beats armor, sorry tankers but you'll never be real cavalry!

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll keep saying it. I just don’t care.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >-t. the coping American tankmen of the “Old Ironsides” Armored Division after the wrecked hulks of brand-new General Shermans and General Grants lined the roads

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That’s a lot of words I’m not reading

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who the frick calls the Sherman and Grant tanks the General Sherman and General Grant? Everyone just called them the Sherman and Grant, including the people who designed and built the fricking things.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you invented something that can do a tank's job better yet?
    No? Then they aren't obsolete.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tanks are bad at many things. they should never go without infantry support, and they're infamously dogshit at urban operations. they're also good at many things. don't start talking about how bad helicopters are just because they can't go on bombing runs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What ARE MBTs good for today that cheaper, faster IFVs can't do? Fight other tanks? That's a tautology. Drones have essentially given every 3rd world tin pot nation a fully functional CAS air-arm. Like for battleships, aircraft is the deathblow for big huge lumbering MBTs. IFVs, which are the land equivalent of modern warships is replacing MBTs.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What ARE MBTs good for today that cheaper, faster IFVs can't do? Fight other tanks?
        bradley is not much faster than an MBT
        and if you armored up a bradley enough to take the place of an MBT, it wont be much cheaper

        >Fight other tanks?
        breakthrough role requires heavy firepower and armor
        deleting MBTs means IFVs will have to be drastically increased in size to accomodate the loss in firepower and protection

        >Like for battleships, aircraft is the deathblow for big huge lumbering MBTs
        MBTs are highly agile
        the M1 abrams replaced the humvee in cav troops because it had better off-road performance

        >IFVs, which are the land equivalent of modern warships is replacing MBTs.
        IFVs are the destroyer to the MBTs carrier
        alternatively: the MBT/IFV combo is the equivalent of a destroyer task force, with the ABCT being the main maneuver element of the army, the armored divisions being the most concentrated weapon in their arsenal

        if we go by the battleship analogy, then the MBT is inarguably not comparable
        the battleship pretty much fell out of use immediately after WW2
        whereas the MBT is still the backbone of the army today

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/iATTo9l.jpeg

          I'll keep saying it. Tanks are obsolete.

          >MBTs
          >Armor
          All in the wrong spot in the world of omnidirectional smart munition strikes. Cope field mods is necessary to upgrade existing designs to a tolerable state. Clean sheet designs would have different armor configuration.
          > Firepower
          HV sabot shooters are bad at non-sabot shooting, like 17Ib shermans and 57mm T-34s. All the propellent and huge ammo and no more effect then a bmp-3 100mm. 40mm airburst have more stored kills than 120mm HE that still kills one men per shot against dispersed opponents, nevermind AA power.
          >but what about enemy tanks, with APS?
          Strap a spike and top attack them, strap a CKEM and brute force it. Don't build a entire vehicle around very rare situations as long range fires kills vehicles, not close combat.

          Frankly SADRAM > Sabot, just make big payload guns and forget hypervelocity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All in the wrong spot in the world of omnidirectional smart munition strikes.
            Main threat are ATGMs, handheld rockets, and large guns
            Clean sheet designs would have identical armor layout

            >All the propellent and huge ammo and no more effect then a bmp-3 100mm
            Stop talking out of your ass
            The 120mm MP exceeds and autocannon in effect on target

            >Strap a spike and top attack them, strap a CKEM and brute force it.
            Main gun is more desirable than missiles, because you can fire both HE and AP out the same tube

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Drones have essentially given every 3rd world tin pot nation
        Having just enough technology to fly cheap Aliexpress drones into tanks but not have the defenses against them is exactly the kind of situation that's gonna leave those tin pot nations a greater threat to themselves than other countries.
        If everyone has a $500 AT drone, anyone can fly them into the dictator's window at night.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and they're infamously dogshit at urban operations
      There's no practical reason this should be the case. The tank is what the city wishes it would be: armored, mobile, and in a compact package. A tank has the leeway to chose when and where to engage the city and should have enough firepower to turn a skyscraper inside out from two miles away.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There's no practical reason this should be the case
        mech battalions are trained for urban combat
        they use 2 mech infantry and 1 armor companies, compared to 2 armor and 1 mech for armor battalions

        the armor is still important, they just pack more infantry to take better advantage of the terrain
        the tanks being used to control the roads and to hit point targets with their gun, while the infantry clear out buildings
        a full urban operation would involve multiple armor and infantry brigades working in tandem

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FPV pilot here
    The age of man on the battlefield is over

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The battlefield is simply expanding and becoming less dense. Permanent recon and strike capabilities demand so.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The entire world is the battlefield
        We are genuinely a few years away from slaughterbots

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        FPV pilot here
        The age of man on the battlefield is over

        Fields are below the sky. The sky is the supreme domain of modern and future war, both in the sky and beyond it.
        The age of the battlefield is over. We're in the epoch of the battlespace™.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You'll keep saying it and you'll keep being wrong.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll keep saying it. Op is a fat fricking homosexual.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's like saying that crabs are obsolete even though they've independently evolved several times.

    There are lots of things that prey on crabs but that doesn't make them extinct

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll keep saying it. Tanks are not obsolete.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Bad tanks are obsolete
    Always has been. civil war in Spain clearly demonstrated that tank need to tank AT hits (and everyone rushed to up armor their tanks against standard 25-37mm guns).

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Said by increasingly nervous man for the 7th time today. If tanks are obsolete why is every country including Russia expanding tank acquisition and development? Why are regional powers like Iran, Turkey, India, Israel, China, North Korea, Japan, etc. all concerned with domestic MBT development? If the end of tankery is so obviously a consequence of drone warfare, which began long before Ukraine btw, then why is there not even a single upstart power betting big on drone integrated IFVs or whatever as a replacement for the tank? No matter their level of development, armies still want tanks in their combined arms teams. People that know better than you seem to disagree, so for anyone to take you seriously you're going to need to post credentials or shut the frick up.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. Navy designers worldwide constructing battleships in 1936.

      Tanktards will cope that "PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE TANK WAS DEAD BEFORE AFTER WW2". But it very well may have been. Tanks have never really proved themself since, there hasn't been a real war where they were truly tested. The gulf war and iraq war were the closest but the coalitions had air superiority, were fighting demoralised and incompetent turdies in monkey model tanks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Navy designers worldwide constructing battleships in 1936.
        battleships were perfectly logical to build in 1936

        carriers werent good enough back then to actually achieve the dominance they did in the 40s

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for admitting to being a moron.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >missing OP's point this hard
        Tanks proved themselves a wild success directly after the aforementioned battle.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >firepower beats armor
    correct, and tanks has the most direct firepower of any ground vehicle

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    CAS spam works extremely well in HOI4 and in real life.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *