>MBTs are still a necessary competent of combined arms wa-ACK

>MBTs are still a necessary competent of combined arms wa-ACK

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M2 bradley literally only exists alongside the M1A2 in combat teams
    the formation is centered around the M1, with the brads providing support

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Please explain what an M1 can do that a second bradley can't just do better

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nta
        Take a hit from a 30mm round.
        Even the Warrior would pen a Bradley.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          M5 Bradleys have as much armor as an M4 Sherman. 30mm isn't going to do more than scratch the paint unless you aim for the sides.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            stop getting your opinions from war thunder

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kill a tank at 4km without having to track the target for 20 seconds.

        nta
        Take a hit from a 30mm round.
        Even the Warrior would pen a Bradley.

        This, or some 125mm slav APFSDS round.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        TL:DR Take a hit that would mission kill a Bradley, and, like Anon said, kill an enemy tank without needing to wait half a minute for the computer to track it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >destroy structures with 120mm gun
        >destroy heavier AFVs without wasting ATGMs and with fewer shots and smaller percentage of ammo capacity
        >engage enemy vehicles at a much longer range
        >survive hits from (heavier) tandem charge ATGMs
        >survive hits from other tanks

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nta
          Take a hit from a 30mm round.
          Even the Warrior would pen a Bradley.

          Kill a tank at 4km without having to track the target for 20 seconds.

          [...]
          This, or some 125mm slav APFSDS round.

          TL:DR Take a hit that would mission kill a Bradley, and, like Anon said, kill an enemy tank without needing to wait half a minute for the computer to track it.

          Please explain what an M1 can do that a second bradley can't just do better

          > Defeat Sustained 16" Artillery salvos
          > Survive contact detonation torpedoes
          > Resist Small diameter bombs that penetrate defenses
          > Surface Naval Gunfire Support
          > Defeat bunkers with cheap ammo
          > Defeat armor battalions in a short time with sheer throw weight

          Guys, battleships are totally necessary for navies

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The difference is you are intentionally being obtuse and the things we all mentioned are still relevant capabilities and threats to the modern battlefield.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Battleships went away because carriers can do the all the same missions but from longer range. IFVs cant do all the missions of an MTB and that goes the same way around. Replacing carriers with LHDs would be a better naval comparrison to replacing tanks with IFVs.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Iowa served to the 90s and NGFS can not be replaced by carriers in throw weight, responsiveness or cost. Task forces had battleships and carriers serve together for decades. Zumwalt was suppose to replace the battleships with advance gun systems that offer range on a heavy cruiser sized platform.

              - the real change is that marines no longer attempt opposed landings, and not all capabilities are equally important in a world of limited budgets.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not exactly. The rise of naval aviation did spell the final doom for the battleship by making them obsolete but the fact was the battleship, like the dreadnaughts before it, had become untenable in the battlefield thanks to the massive proliferation of torpedoes. There was NOTHING a battleship could realistically do against torpedoes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There was NOTHING a battleship could realistically do against torpedoes.
                Destroying the vehicles launching them and evasion?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i honestly still wonder why battleships don't still exist for budget shore bombardment. maybe not ridiculous 60 200000mm guns but something like the old Monitor class as a seaborne mortar truck

            but then again i am stupid

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Because all that can be done much more efficiently and effectively with PGMs and at longer ranges with more flexibility

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah but the cost per strike would be so much lower

                though i guess western militaries are at this point made to spend money, and i guess smaller militaries don't have the money for navies in the first place and most of those little ones already DO operate small craft with HMGs and cheap manpads taped to them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >though i guess western militaries are at this point made to spend money
                "At this point"? Dude, how was WWI won? How was WWII won? Welcome to industrialised warfare,where outspending your enemy is in fact the default way to win a war.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >WWI won? How was WWII won?
                those were less "we spent more than the opponent" and more "the opponent ran out of money first". also from my limited studies, at least WWII was more a matter of physical resources depleting rather than cash funding (most notably germany and its allies running out of cheap coal and wood to fire steel industry and the rising importance of oil in making more than fuel and lubricants in countries with waning access to oil)

                i'd say it was more the gulf war where it shifted from a marathon to a sprint in terms of burning money to win, and more about spending money directly than spending the stuff money buys

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is cash ultimately? It's a medium of exchange, the oil lubricating the engine of commercial transactions. In the context of a war economy, money is a tool to direct and organise the spending of resources and worker effort.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but I'm more of a gunboat diplomacy kind of guy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >cost per strike

                It doesn't matter what the cost is when a single tomahawk will do the job of hundreds of conventional shells at a much longer range

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah but the cost per strike would be so much lower
                No, no it wouldn't be. Because you're not looking at total system cost, only construction cost of your boat and its ammo.

                Building a battleship requires building multiple specialised industries first. We're talking thousands of workers, extensive infrastructure etc. all exclusively to be able to evne start building your boat and its big guns. And then you need to crew that thing, and keep paying its upkeep and operational costs. Saying the battlehsip is "cheaper" is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

                The thing with airpower or missiles is that they can't just do the job of your battleship adequately, they can do a hell of a lot more and are overall just more important a capability to have. So of course your BB is gonna get axed first when there has to be a decision of what to keep with a limited budget.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We're talking thousands of workers, extensive infrastructure etc. all exclusively to be able to evne start building your boat and its big guns. And then you need to crew that thing, and keep paying its upkeep and operational costs
                but this is already true of all shipbuilding, and guns tend to come right from a manufacturer rather than being built for the vessel these days. at least that's the case for the "small" self-defense guns on a lot of modern ships.

                also isn't establishing extensive infra for thousands of workers to build a shitty boat considered a good thing? in my shithole country, shipbuilding is a thinly veiled way of buying presents for the Irving family. Having heard stories of infantry complaining that they couldn't get fire support because it's too expensive, though, I could see the use for cheaper guided artillery over cruise missiles or carrier-based air strikes for smaller countries that may have to fight combined arms battles near shores or in-shore on large rivers/in harbours/etc.

                but then again, why not just ship in some normal-ass self-propelled artillery at that rate i suppose. i just like the thought of small ships with disproportionally large guns and exotic extra equipment

                Not exactly. The rise of naval aviation did spell the final doom for the battleship by making them obsolete but the fact was the battleship, like the dreadnaughts before it, had become untenable in the battlefield thanks to the massive proliferation of torpedoes. There was NOTHING a battleship could realistically do against torpedoes.

                i think that in any discussion of naval assets, we gotta drop the idea that ships are anything more than support for land or air battles and some smaller ships to protect the big ships from stupid little stuff. sea battles don't seem to really happen much anymore, and there's too much active protection against missiles/aircraft to make attacking them from air anything but suicide (or a waste of missiles), but torpedoes and submarine and mine warfare are simply too threatening to field capital ships in contested waters.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Loitering in gun range of a shoreline isn't worth the risk in an age where even non-state actors have AShMs. The shells might be cheap, but the ship and the crew firing them are not.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Real life doesn’t conform to your doctrinal homosexualry. Bradley’s are operating on their own to great effect. Granted you wouldn’t be able to do the same thing with a CV-90, but for the brad and puma it’s completely tenable

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What does the Bradley do that the CV90 doesn't?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          All Bradleys can kill tanks for starters, only a few CV90s have ATGMs, most just have a gun. I’m surprised you didn’t know that

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty sure ATGMs has been availble for decades on CV90s, euros just cheaped out since the new hot thing was fighting sandBlack folk that didnt have any tanks. Now they are a bit stuffed tho

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So just buy the right one. Why can't it operate alone?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It can. The reason it doesn't is because there's just not a particularly good reason to force the people operating them to do so. We have options, and most of those options increase everyone's lifespan when working together.
              Teamwork unironically and literally makes the dream work, anon.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its advert says it needs arty and hellis

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw you cant have objective conversations about equipment because they are totem vehicles in a current war.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you sent out a fleet of IFV vs a fleet of MBT, the MBT would take losses but still win. The issue is optics, recon, and combined arms. MBT fight with their main gun, while the IFV supports them and also takes out enemy armor with its ATGM. They're meant to support each other alongside all the other parts of the army.

    Ukraine is slanted because they can't do combined arms, have a weak airforce (helis and jets destroying enemy radar, armor, recon, etc is essential), and the terrain favors quick fast moving vehicles. So the bradley shines.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For the millionth fricking time, muh combined arms is a meme that only works against towelheads with rusty AKs.
      The Ukrainian war is an actual war and none of the manchild fantasies like air dominance apply to it.
      MBTs are obsolete in the same way battleships and horse cavalry are obsolete and no amount of burying your head in the sand will change it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're right. We shouldn't send Destroyers along with carriers since carriers have VLS for AAA too.
        Absolute moron.
        Even in the slavwar they send IFVs and Tanks together.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Ukrainian war is an actual war and none of the manchild fantasies like air dominance apply to it.
        You are a fricking imbecile, he just explained exactly why Ukraine has not been able to achieve air superiority or air dominance. Do you think the USAF or USN would fare the same against Russia?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >muh combined arms is a meme that only works against towelheads with rusty AKs.
        Boy, this had better be bait...

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >MBTs are obsolete

        A modern up to date MBT is going to have superior optics, get recon data fed elsewhere, and will destroy an armored fighting vehicle like the Bradley from several KM away. It is true that the Bradley curb stomps the Russian T-80 and T-72s is because they have shit optics, shit combined arms, and shit recon. But we're not talking about Bradley versus Russian shit, it's Bradley versus Leopard 2As.

        The Bradley has weak armor for a reason because it's not meant to replace MBT but to work alongside them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Namer IFV
          > Armor: Yes
          > APS: Yes
          > Sensors: Yes
          > Anti-tank: beyond line of sight missile rekt your tank hiding behind a hill. Drone spot your tank from behind a hill.
          > Autocannon pew pew drones
          > Infantry support: yes
          -----------------------
          > but but, shooting autocannons at missiles at holes is expensive
          stop buying million dollar vehicles to save tens of thousands in ammo.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >only we will have drones, not anyone else
            aight israelite

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cool, so why do Israel field a huge tank army if its useless compared to this wunderwaffe?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Unmanned turret tech is too new.
              Israeli tanks also carry infantry, a mortar and guided rounds, not mono-function space-minimized soviets
              Demolishing a city of nigs with homebrew RPG with missiles too expensive when good old HE does the job.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Israeli tanks also carry infantry
                Nope. There is space for a guy or two, but doctrinally they dont carry anyone there unless something has gone horribly wrong

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Isn't the mortar just for throwing smoke and illumination shells?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >so why do Israel field a huge tank army if its useless compared to this wunderwaffe

              The Sinai is probably the only place in the modern world were a modern tank battle could take place between superpowers and while stuff like Spike LR can help against tanks some chokepoints could be reinforced with tanks.

              Also your question is dumb because israel uses the same chasis for the merkava and the namer so it's the same production line building both with the same hardware.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >planned upgrade
            So now you've effectively built an MBT with a tiny transport compartment and a more expensive and less effective armaments package to make space for it. Sounds like a stupid attempt to do everything with one vehicle instead of specialising like any actually competent designer would do.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Interwar-brained: Lets have scout, cavalry, infantry, howitzer armed, high velocity gun armed, machine gun armed, autocannon armed, casemate, open top/close top, one men turret, three man turret, multiturret, direct fire vehicles of tracked chassis of 20 to 70 tons and our expert generals will use doctrine and tactics to place them at the right spot at the right time.

              Postwar brained: Lets just have mediums with big guns and forward biased armor and call it a day. Generals are morons and vehicles are never at the right place at the right times.

              Today our generals are totally genius selected by genius biden and trump and can totally place complex specialized vehicles and formations at right place and time every time.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Brainlet take. Specialised armored vehicles took off increasingly more in the late and postwar eras. The MBT being one of them and combining the old medium and heavy tank roles effectively was merely part of that overall evolutionary process.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A modern up to date MBT is going to have superior optics
          Let's be real here: any equally "up to date" MBT and IFV are going to have identical or at least equivalent optronics.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its a fricking helmetard thread
        of course

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >helmetard
          how many *tards are we up to right now? how many villains/enemies does the /k/ hivemind hate right now? And why are we wasting effort freaking out about them when they are a minor annoyance at most?

          >helmetard
          >warriortard
          >Flankertard
          >MiGtard
          >MIGAtard
          >Mandic
          >Dennis
          >timecop the naruto subber

          /k/, this isn't healthy. I'm not sure any of these *tards actually exist

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to be missing the Malaysian and the South korean

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most of them are actually the same person.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              are they you? how many meds are you on?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if this one has a name, but has anyone else noticed that one anon who believes war is totally impossible without air supremacy. Not that it's hard to win a war without it, but that nobody can possibly go to war without it? I've seen his posts a lot and he's fricking loony. He also claims that planes don't suffer attrition and sorties are free.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Post your combat experience.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A tank get 42 potentially tank-killing rounds. That thing has what? 2 ATGMs and 4 more that takes several minutes to reload while the turret cant be operated?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Which is why they work best as combined arms, and compliment each other perfectly. In close combat, an ATGM is likely to be more useful, and long range the MBT shot is more useful.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. And more importantly, IFVs carries infantry, something tanks dont. Replacing one with the other is just pure moronness

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Probably more the other way around. Cannon has the advantage at short and medium ranges and uses cheaper, lighter and less bulky ammo, meaning you cna carry more and be more profligate with it. The advantage of ATGMs is longer maximum range and lower weight/better protability for the system as a whole.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How many tanks do you plan on engaging at once with your IFV?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Tanks (3005, of which destroyed: 2004, damaged: 157, abandoned: 329, captured: 515)

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People get this mixed up— modern combined arms, or just modern warfare period, is something that exists only in the U.S. The vast majority of countries don’t have the organizational / institutional strength for it, and the handful of nations which do have that none except the U.S. can AFFORD all of the pieces needed to make it work. It’s sort of like how only the Romans could do the Roman Legion. What we’re seeing in Ukraine is pretty close to the what "combined arms" means everywhere outside the U.S. What the U.S. did since the Gulf War was show off American overmatch / complete supremacy in civilization vs everyone else, NOT just a textbook example of modern warfare everyone could do if they Just Did It Right.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine is somehwere right in the middle of developed country and developing country, plus they've been severely undermanned since day 1 so they're not an example of the ideal outside of USA. Most major armies in Europe (France especially) can do combined arms.

      There is also the paradox of military development, where to become developed to the point of doing combined arms, means an advanced economy which means heavy integration into other economies and a developed democratic stat with strong institutions. Such a state is very unlikely to go to war, thus never using combined arms in practice. More likely to engage in counter insurgency and small operations.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oh hey i just queued up that movie. it's pretty lulzy

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yeah he isn’t allowed to even speak my name without catching a ban now a days. Shits cash. My latest round of false flagging proved to be incredibly effective and he knows it.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IFVs kill infantry and light armored vehicles and are used primarily as support tanks for infantry. Tanks are primarily used to murder any hostile vehicle in the area, especially enemy tanks since its way easier to kill a tank with a tank of your own than by setting up an ATGM. Tanks can also take a bigger beating and can more easily destroy infrastructure and obstacles than an IFV.

    ATGMs are nice to have with a Bradley. But don’t think for a second that that is a good replacement for a cannon. Especially against modern MBTs that have APS and laser warning and soft kill capabilities. And with the coming deployment of laser defense systems, things are gonna be even worse for missiles.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You are all posting in a warriortard thread.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks make big boom boom like I do in my diapers, therefore good.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      hot, anon. post pics

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it would be foolish to attempt to predict the future, soley based on the methods of two armies consisting of Arab-tier monkeys.

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