The current war in Ukraine has proven that IFV > MBTs

The current war in Ukraine has proven that IFV > MBTs

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

    how?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/jvs7Bl4.jpg

      The current war in Ukraine has proven that IFV > MBTs

      IFV and AFV are cheaper, more maneouverable, and they are useful for assisting troops. MBT are a bit too costly and too easy to destroy.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >more maneouverable
        no they didnt
        the extra armor of the MBT translates to better maneuver because frontal protection from autocannons and RPGs means that an infantry platoon cant engage them at all except at very close range

        > and they are useful for assisting troops
        the troops exist to support the MBT on the advance

        >MBT are a bit too costly and too easy to destroy.
        and IFVs arent easy to destroy?
        most IFVs are only 14.5mm all-around resistant and possible 30mm autocannon resistant from the front and sides, MBTs can resist HEAT rounds and sabot

        the war has proven that armored brigades consisting of MBTs supported by IFVs is the ideal force, which is why brigades consist of exactly that

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I love the cope of "easy to destroy"
          Yeah, the tank 1600 meters away absolutely fricking railing you with HEAT-MP-T or AMP rounds is so easy to destroy. Just, like, move a drone with an RPG warhead directly over it bro. Why are you dying? Why are you scared? Just use a drone bro.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Fricks you up from 10km away without exposing yourself

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            SEE? They always say this shit.

            I swear drone autists are mentally disabled. I have not seen a single one of them actually use their minds to picture how their plan would work irl, they always just jump to "drones will kill everything!" and then treat you like a moron for not immediately agreeing with them.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >get jammed
              dronegays btfo

              How many MBTs has drones destroyed so far and how many drone operators were killed by MBTs in this current war in Ukraine?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See? Absolute morons. You can't just reduce this stuff to one number vs another, you'd realize this if you'd actually read a single fricking book.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet it is you who avoid the inevitable objective truth that a cheap drone is better than an expensive mbt.
                >but you can't compare mbt and drone operator deaths!
                Ok
                then you invent another field of competition, like
                >mbts.. mbts also kill troops. Those are different numbers
                Ok drones also can kill troops
                >mbt, like, can shoot all kinds of rounds.Like you cant shoot heat from a drone
                Technically it can, it indeed does not carry too great ammo
                >drones can be jammed
                Well tanks can die from a mine

                Etc. You just are trying to expand the field of comparison, yelling how it is not a number vs number, because you know that in totality and separste MBTs are BTFO by drones, so your cope is to imagine almost implausible scenarios. What's gonna be next?
                >ooh.. mbt crew is like passengers. Drones dont carry people !
                Etc.
                Tiresome.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because you know that in totality and separste MBTs are BTFO by drones,
                >and yet drones are mostly used to support tanks
                >and MBTs are still the primary weapon of the army

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >MBT gets destroyed
                >MBTs are obsolete

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except that MBTs are completely hopeless against infantry armed with drones since the latter can spot them way beyond their engagement range without the former even noticing they're being watched and hunted down.
                It's literally the Battleship vs Aircraft Carrier situation but on land.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But that's not how it works, anon. Most drones are jammed, the video you see is of drones that actually get through by flying through deadspots in jamming coverage or getting lucky and picking a frequency that isn't jammed. You do not appear to be intelligent enough to recognize a survivor bias in the wild and that's concerning.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >some drones get jammed, intercepted, malfunction, miss etc
                >there are so many of them, they are easy to manufacture and really fricking cheap
                >launch a bunch to still smoke the target despite countermeassures

                Tanks meanwhile

                >getting more and more expensive with aps they cost as much as a fighter jet used to 20 years ago
                >besides soviet shitboxes that are as effective as golf carts they can't be manufactured en masses and scaling up production takes 5+ years, good luck
                >dies to drones, shoulder fired rockets, mines, laser accurate artillery guided by drones, anything fired from an aircraft etc.
                >its doctrine of fighting other tanks or infantry is obsolete since tanks die to anything other than that and infantry is lethal to them
                >to assault a fortified position you need fpv drones and infantry that can be carried there via ifvs that are cheaper, more manoeuvrable and have specialised cannons

                The tank is fricking done, literaly the same moronic boomer mentality that killed millions in ww1, history is a flat circle.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're a zoomer who began paying attention to military stuff in like 2020 at the latest. It's painfully obvious from what you've just said.

                Anon, some stuff just works. There's no reason to remake the wheel every 5 years just because you're young. If something works there's no reason to get rid of it, and the sooner you learn this the better.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >some stuff just works because it just does and I said so chud, just ignore all the contrary real life evidence
                Kekaroo, yeah we are done here, I accept your concession.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >actually using chud without being prompted
                >kekaroo
                >accept your concession
                Actually, I take back my previous points. You're a degenerate and your life has zero value.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just ignore all the contrary real life evidence
                real life evidence is that armies are beefing up their armored formations

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >real life evidence is that armies are beefing up their armored formations
                Yeah moronic leadership used to doing desert police work is making unsurprising moronic decisions that will get a bunch of gays like you killed in a real war while you are still sucking on their dick.
                Tale as old as time really.
                Also
                >muh appeal to authority
                Go to plebit gay.

                Next.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah moronic leadership used to doing desert police work is making unsurprising moronic decisions
                or, get this, they are making a logical and informed decision

                >muh appeal to authority
                its a fallacy if the authority in question has no actual authority on the topic, like asking albert einstein about whether god exists
                but its not a fallacy at all when you are asking someone with actual authority, if you bring in a general to talk about military matters then its not a fallacy

                theory crafting on the internet can be logically sound, though you arent, and still be wrong because we only have access to publicly available information and liveleak vidoes
                we can, however, take an empirical approach and just look at how armies are organized and plan to organize to test our theories
                and the evidence does not support that drones will replace tanks, because armies are attaching drones to existing brigades rather than forming separate drone brigades

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and the evidence does not support that drones will replace tanks, because armies are attaching drones to existing brigades rather than forming separate drone brigades
                Finally someone who gets it. Drones are useful, but it's more helpful to call them UAVs, which they actually are. You can use them ATTACHED TO ARMORED PLATOONS/COMPANIES/BATTALIONS to do recon, to some degree. If the opportunity presents itself you can use them for some level of attack. But you still use tanks for their main purpose, which is direct fire on vehicles and strongpoints.

                The TOW or even the Javelin needs direct line of shit to engange any tank (thus you're vulnerable to being spotted and killed), drones don't.

                Drones are literally fricking useless. The US is researching mobile SHORAD, laser SHORAD, EW, APS and various other things to kill them right now. There's already a direct energy SHORAD system in service.

                You are just being delusional, this is why everyone is mocking you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think every soviet shitbox will be equipped with lasers to counter drones?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah because the Israelis are losing so many tanks to Iranian drones in gaza

                Oh wait...

                Drones cannot replace direct fire support against strong points. That is why tanks will continue to exist into the future. You need something that can level a building with 105/120mm to the face. Drones are great but they can't do that

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Israelis are commiting a holocaust on a bunch of civilians of which a very small portion were militia armed with makeshift homemade shit.
                Ukraine is a real peer war where one country is several times smaller, poorer etc but is still inflicting disproportionate damage because their doctrine is more modern than their adversaries, not even comparable ya israelite frick.
                Absolutely moronic and talmudic argument

                Next, I am going to eviscerate all tank boomers ITT.
                >Verification not required

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ya israelite frick.
                >talmudic
                This guy is this guy btw

                >some stuff just works because it just does and I said so chud, just ignore all the contrary real life evidence
                Kekaroo, yeah we are done here, I accept your concession.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gaza has no sea access, it's borders are completely controlled by Israel, it was arguably the most heavily surveillanced piece of land, they are simply a prison that gets bombed with impunity. There is so many faults in arguing Gaza as a model for defeating drone warfare because the conditions set are basically non-replicable for nearly any conflict. If Russia had this much control over Ukraine before the war started, they also would have easily won.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it's borders are completely controlled by Israel
                Especially the border with Egypt, right?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >borders are completely controlled by Israe
                Except the one with Egypt

                Hamas has been deploying kamikaze drones exactly like we see the Ukranians and Russians doing.

                Except the Israeli army isn't staffed by moronic Slavs and planned for that and has been deploying jammers to great effect

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a curbstomp on a massively outnumbered and technologically inferior enemy in a tiny urban space is the same as near peers fighting on a country wide open area

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >king david hotel
                >the twin towers
                >gaza
                jews really just hate multi-storied buildings, huh?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, that's where the snipers/forward observers are going to be.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                tanks are used for assaulting enemy positions you cant assault positions with drones

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's literally the Battleship vs Aircraft Carrier situation but on land.
                both carriers and battleships were capital ships
                MBTs are maneuver and breakthrough units, drones are hunter-killers and recon units, they literally do different things

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except that a Fleet with an aircraft carrier will 10/10 times destroy another fleet without one. Same with drones in this case.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we're the only ones who can operate drones
                God I cannot wait until some morons try a drone attack on a US armored company. Do you have any fricking idea how much power an M1 has on tap?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No more than any other tank. You simply hide behind a berm and throw OTH/OTC(cover) attacks at them gg.
                Tanks are useful, but as they become more expensive to make, their counters are only getting cheaper. The west realised this ages ago, but they needed tanks to reduce casualties against thirdies, so they kept them around.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but they needed tanks to reduce casualties against thirdies
                tank crews were trained primarily to fight a conventional war and still are
                counter-insurgency was simply on top of that because they will be the primary unit of maneuver in a conventional war

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Conventional war before drones and top down ATGMs became commonplace, yeah.
                Their enemies didn't have either back then. They either do now, or will have soon enough

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Conventional war before drones and top down ATGMs became commonplace, yeah.
                you said that they only kept tanks around to fight in the third world
                which is patently untrue
                and its still untrue because armored divisions still exist and have been concentrated

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                TOW-2B has been around since 2004. Frick I hate you newbies.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The TOW or even the Javelin needs direct line of shit to engange any tank (thus you're vulnerable to being spotted and killed), drones don't.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                carriers replaced battleships because they did the same job
                MBTs and drones dont even do the same job
                drones cant even replace MBTs in the recon role, cavalry still used both the M1 and M3 brad, much less the MBT in the maneuver role
                drones are used as a force multiplier for the MBTs, giving them situational awareness, because as said previously they have different jobs

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >drones cant even replace MBTs in the recon role
                You are so fricking dumb I don't even know where to start.
                The future tank will be an SPG heavy with a drone escort for beyond line of sight attacks.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You are so fricking dumb I don't even know where to start.
                MBTs are still being used and drones arent going to replace them because they have entirely different battlefield roles

                >The future tank will be an SPG heavy with a drone escort for beyond line of sight attacks.
                we already know what the future tank looks like
                its the M1E3

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mbts are obsolete.
                They will either be replaced by an IFV or we will have drone swarms clearing out infantry and SPAs will shell strongpoints with an unmanned forward observer guiding their strikes.
                Hell all enemy positions will be eaten alive by smart munitions, guided rounds, bombs etc before an infantry unit or armored vehicle even gets withing 5 miles of the front line target.
                In such situation there is no point for an armored vehicle that can't carry infantr, is stupid expensive and has a fricking cannon with 3 miles max range.
                What are you going to use tanks for then? Urban combat? Lmao.

                Next

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They will either be replaced by an IFV or we will have drone swarms clearing out infantry and SPAs will shell strongpoints with an unmanned forward observer guiding their strikes.
                IFVs currently only exist in armored units alongside tanks, because thats literally their role, to support tanks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Circular reasoning moron.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its not circular reason, IFVs primary role is to support tanks
                which is why we see IFVs primarily used in armored brigades supporting tanks

                they are just doing what they are intended to do

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                moron

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >IFVs are in tank brigades to support tanks
                >why do they support tanks? because they're built to support tanks
                >why are they built to support tanks? to be in tank brigades
                IT'S ALMOST LIKE THIS IS ACTUALLY COMPLETELY FINE.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                how is "the vehicle does what its intended to do" circular reasoning?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Undeniable, proven fact, moron.
                MBTs are the indispensable, central lynchpin of morern maneuver warfare as practiced by every single last first world military in existence. In offensive maneuver war, all other arms exist to support the tank, nothing more. And no amount of seething, denial and armchair moroniation on your part will change any of that. The MBTs front and center place on the battlefield will survive you. Deal with it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The better protected smaller vehicle with bigger firepower and a crew of 3-4 will be replaced by a lesser armored larger vehicle with a crew of 3 and 8 men on board so we can make sure to lose as many men as possible during an assault

                lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                an MBT isn't just driving around alone, they're part of a network of infantry, drones, IFVs, other tanks, they all have comms, etc. Killing an MBT means generally you have to kill it's supporting units as well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they're part of a network of infantry, drones, IFVs, other tanks, they all have comms, etc
                lol that's WESTERN doctrine. Those dumbfricks just spam whatever they have at a minefield and beg for more from the EU and Biden.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ITT, dronetards actually believe this

                Except that a Fleet with an aircraft carrier will 10/10 times destroy another fleet without one. Same with drones in this case.

                >ITT, absolute ignoramuses actually believe this

                No more than any other tank. You simply hide behind a berm and throw OTH/OTC(cover) attacks at them gg.
                Tanks are useful, but as they become more expensive to make, their counters are only getting cheaper. The west realised this ages ago, but they needed tanks to reduce casualties against thirdies, so they kept them around.

                >No more than any other tank. You simply hide behind a berm and throw OTH/OTC(cover) attacks at them gg.
                Yes, GG, because you will die achieving nothing.

                Conventional war before drones and top down ATGMs became commonplace, yeah.
                Their enemies didn't have either back then. They either do now, or will have soon enough

                Conventional war as waged by competent first-rate armies right now. Seethe more about it, clueless armchair moron.

                >muh top attack
                Literally been around since before you moronic child got shat out by your mom, and yet the tank endures as it has endured for over a century of people trying to find new and exiting ways to kill it.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              drones are just the nanobots of the 2020s

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >get jammed
            dronegays btfo

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Put a shitty ai on it for terminal guidance
              Nothing personal jammergay

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Put a shitty ai on it

                oh my god i hate how ignorant everyone on this board is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're going to jam a 120$ CPU dedicated to ML?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                An AI accelerated orange pi is no more than a $200, and that's the consumer price. Skynet is the literal future and there is nothing anybody can do about it

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              loitering munitions aren't immune to jamming neither, jackass

              But that's not how it works, anon. Most drones are jammed, the video you see is of drones that actually get through by flying through deadspots in jamming coverage or getting lucky and picking a frequency that isn't jammed. You do not appear to be intelligent enough to recognize a survivor bias in the wild and that's concerning.

              >Put a shitty ai on it

              oh my god i hate how ignorant everyone on this board is.

              >Jamm..ACK

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Get jammed
                >No GPS so the drone doesn't know exactly where it is
                >AFV identified
                >Kill confirmed
                >It was a Bradley
                Oops.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oops!

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >get jammed
              dronegays btfo

              >Jammers will save me from the drone menace...ACK

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >jams GPS
                dronegays btfo

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There are anti-Gps jamming devices that totally ignore signals coming from the ground. Footies are done for.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                loitering munitions aren't immune to jamming neither, jackass

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I can feel tumors growing from lookin at that pic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I work with satellite antennas for a living and don't have tumors, stop fearmongering

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                really? you'll find out about the tumors when you retire goyim.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/n7YAH0v.jpg

            oops!

            https://i.imgur.com/6G0Fu4H.png

            [...]
            >Jammers will save me from the drone menace...ACK

            Theoretically couldn't you have a wire guided drone?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Congratulations, you have reinvented the wire guided ATGM.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                heh
                reminds me of RUSI's rather irked commentary on Shasneeds: "just because they're slow and cheap doesn't make them not cruise missiles"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >triangulates your drones' control transmission and calls in airstrike or artillery barrage on you.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >IFV and AFV are cheaper, more maneouverable, and they are useful for assisting troops.
        Looks like IFVs dies the same to FPV drones and we have deadlock with neither side able to break through defences and conduct maneuver warfare.
        Asll current AFVs suck in the current meta, we have just different degrees of sucking

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >current meta
          Learn some actual terms, holy frick. Frick off back to the War Thunder subreddit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go to bed boomer, you boomer Abraham wundervaffen failed against zoomer gadgets.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Abraham wundervaffen
              You do this to feel smart, don't you?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >just go back to ww1 tactics or something

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes war essentially denigrated to WWI tactics, firepower just like during WWI wins and it's deadlock of attrition war.
                What do you think people wanted WWI attrition trench warfare? Nope, Germans had plans to encircle and take Paris in 3 month. But Unforeseen Consequences happened

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                thats why armor exist to break stalemates

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Problem is armor stopped serving its purplose.
                $1500 FPV drone with RPG-7 tied in kills supposedly invulnerable Leopard 2 and Abraham wundervaffens protected with superior chobhem ceramic armor. And it's an ogre.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the larger threat by far is from enemy sabot rounds and conventional shaped charge weapons like the RPG, which is what the armor is effective against

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hello boomer. How is to live in 1991? Rewatching Dessert Storm again?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't pretend you wouldn't have declared maneuver warfare obsolete after the Iran-Iraq War only to be suprised_pikachu_face.jpg when the Gulf War happened 3 years later.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                moron

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/jTqdIg7.jpg

                Looking at this war. I get the impression that it is not only with the effective use of tanks that there is a problem there. It is the same with IFVs and infantry. What we have in Ukraine is a World War I-style war of attrition on the Western Front. There is the general problem of protecting the advancing forces from destruction by drone-supported artillery.

                Yes war essentially denigrated to WWI tactics, firepower just like during WWI wins and it's deadlock of attrition war.
                What do you think people wanted WWI attrition trench warfare? Nope, Germans had plans to encircle and take Paris in 3 month. But Unforeseen Consequences happened

                >Muh combined arms + Air power made trench warfare obsolete
                Never heard of the Korean War?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Never heard of the Korean War?
                it was a huge tug-of-war in which each side took turns making massive gains
                it only settled into a frozen conflict after 1951 because they deliberately were ordered to hold at the parallel because they didnt want the negotiations for the ceasefire to be ruined

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Aren't we in the same situation in Ukraine? After the initial Russian gains in the South and the Ukrainian success in the Kharkiv and Kherson counter-offensives has led to both sides start building fortifications to hold the gains they got and that has led to the current stalemate. When each side is determined to hold a position and not just give up It at first contact (Desert Storm), I'll always be a war of attrition.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >not just give up It at first contact
                And here we have a moron who doesn't understand that the Iraqi divisions holding the front line got fricking slaughtered to the point they weren't brave enough to go out and contest the minefield breaches.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Aren't we in the same situation in Ukraine?
                the conflict isnt frozen, they are still fighting for the initiative
                its just hard because the ukranians are outnumbered and the russians are stupid

                > that has led to the current stalemate
                it isnt currently a stalemate, the russians just made gains in one area while the ukranians made one in another
                and the russians are not going to stop

                > I'll always be a war of attrition.
                it will always be a war of maneuver as its always better to outposition the enemy than it is to fight them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Iraqi Republican Guard fought and died in place against a much-superior opponent. It does not get more determined than that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I don't know what they expected the regular Iraqis to do, their artillery was destroyed, they had barely any contact with their high command, they lacked weapons, they were getting bombed or strafed, most of them were basically untrained conscripts, and out of fricking nowhere an entire armored force would show up. Who wouldn't surrender in that situation?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Never heard of the Korean War?
                That ended in deadlock and drawing new state borders along 2 milions mines AT minefield?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And what led to that stale mate Sherlock? Could It be the infamous trenches and artillery that both sides started deploying that supposedly were already made obsolete by WW2's air power + combined arms warfare?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And what led to that stale mate Sherlock?
                politics
                the allies deliberately did not pursue past the parallel because they entered negotiations and wanted to fix the enemy in place until they were willing to talk

                >Could It be the infamous trenches and artillery that both sides started deploying that supposedly were already made obsolete by WW2's air power + combined arms warfare?
                trenches were a non-factor in the korean war, with the largest battles being fought mostly on local terrain

                the allies made only minor use of trenches when defending and would more rely on the aforementioned terrain and copious use of artillery, armor, and airpower
                ergo, combined arms

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >too easy to destroy
        Lol? Look at the casualty list of vehicles per day in ukraine. IFV APC etc all get destroyed by drones but tanks get “damaged” or “abandoned” status, only destroyed with special drones carrying AT mines

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An MBT is an AFV you idiot.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >IFV and AFV are cheaper
        HAhahahaHAHAHahahahaha
        hahahah

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >cheaper
        wrong
        >maneouverable
        wrong
        >easy to destroy
        wrong

        an IFV is functionally identical to an MBT, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, save that it gives up armour and main gun firepower for a squad of soldiers, that's literally it

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The current war in Ukraine has proven that 500 IFV > 50 MBTs

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any decent military will deploy both and clap both your hypothetical pure tank or pure IFV forces with that

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not really. All we've seen is that Russian vehicles in general are garbage and designed to kill the crew when hit badly.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then how come Leopard 2's and Abrams haven't fared any better whilst Bradleys have outperformed both of them?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have they? How do you know that?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and how do you know that bradleys have outperformed them? have ukrainian commanders come out and said that?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IFVs are generally more useful than tanks but that doesn't mean tanks aren't useful.
    Completely different thing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >IFVs are generally more useful than tanks but that doesn't mean tanks aren't useful.
      except for the fact that the typical tank battalion has 2 heavy combat teams and only 1 light combat team
      meaning they value the tank-heavy unit more than the IFV-heavy unit

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What do you think that statement proves? I don't follow your logic at all.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What do you think that statement proves?
          they consider the tank more important overall because they favor units with more tanks than IFVs

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        IFVs are also found outside of tank battalions.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >IFVs are also found outside of tank battalions.
          in cavalry troops, where they only carry a pair of scouts instead of a squad and not acting as an IFV

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Many nations have 4 or 5 times as many IFVs than tanks.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              except for the fact that an armored battalion has 5 tank companies but only 4 mech companies
              so they very slightly prefer tanks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you autistic?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                are you?
                the only brad variant that isnt in an armored brigade is the M3, which has no troop capacity

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We are not talking about Bradleys. We are talking about IFVs.

                Do you understand?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We are not talking about Bradleys
                you mean an IFV?

                >Do you understand?
                the IFV which has fewer units than M1s in the unit they operate in

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you don't understand that the Bradley isn't the only IFV out there.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Considering you're likely the dude that posted

                >some stuff just works because it just does and I said so chud, just ignore all the contrary real life evidence
                Kekaroo, yeah we are done here, I accept your concession.

                , I find it hilarious that you're just trying to do circular arguments and gaslighting now. Have you considered going back?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can just say you live in Russia.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USMC was right for getting rid of their Abrams

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has proven that both are death traps

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the war has proven that anything that isnt made entirely out of armor cannot manuever
      want a death trap, get a rifle and hop in a trench

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are dronegays acting like we can't just put a .50cal CIWS on tanks? The technology already exists to counter drones, the zigs are just too poor to implement it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are dronegays acting like we can't just put a .50cal CIWS on tanks?
      I think 7.62 Minigun would be more useful in this role.

      But what is stopping you? Why didn't you equip your Abraham wundervaffen you send to Ukraine with AA CIWs? Why do Abrahams were immediately blown up ATGMs and FPV drones without achieving any change on the frontlines?
      AFVs are in deep crisis and boomers who make decisions just wandern in circles completely clueless.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's because tanks are first disabled by artillery and then finished off by drones for PR videoa. That's why so many videos you see drones dropping incendiary grenades directly onto opened hatches (crew already bailed out after getting mobility killed)

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IFV and MBT don't compete but support each other as per nature of combined arms warfare. have a nice day, morons.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Looking at this war. I get the impression that it is not only with the effective use of tanks that there is a problem there. It is the same with IFVs and infantry. What we have in Ukraine is a World War I-style war of attrition on the Western Front. There is the general problem of protecting the advancing forces from destruction by drone-supported artillery.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And what do you recommend as a solution to artillery strikes guided by drones?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Protected tank.
        Protected tactical drones launchers on the same base.
        Pro tip: with current weapons development tanks have no protection.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >with current weapons development tanks have no protection.
          except for extremely heavy protection from artillery, ATGMs, handheld rockets, and kinetic weapons

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Abraham wundervaffen goes kaboom.webm

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              resorting to posting the same thing over and over again because very few were lost owing to their extreme protection

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just ASKING this question makes you look moronic. Pick up a book, moron. Frick I hate you people. This shit was figured out in WW2.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So artillery and trench warfare were made obsolete after WW2? Why didn't the guys remember that fact back in the Korean War?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So artillery and trench warfare were made obsolete after WW2?
            yes

            >Why didn't the guys remember that fact back in the Korean War?
            the korean was largely fought using local terrain rather than trenches
            chinese relied on fast infiltration attacks specifically because bunkering down in a trench was a death sentence

            Hello boomer. How is to live in 1991? Rewatching Dessert Storm again?

            >How is to live in 1991
            its still true today

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >What we have in Ukraine is a World War I-style war of attrition on the Western Front.
      not even close

      > There is the general problem of protecting the advancing forces from destruction by drone-supported artillery.
      the start of the war was a massive sweeping advance by the russians
      the current state of the war is slow but steady gains from ukraine, with their victories primarily coming from mechanized advances

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the start of the war was a massive sweeping advance by the russians
        Killer drones spam only hit frontlines in 2023.
        BTW there is article that northern Russian Kiev convoy was stopped and bleed to death by Ukrainian drones special ops who were in the cradle comparing to today.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Kiev

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >expecting non-slavs to remember which one is the good guy team pronunciation
            >assuming anyone other than ukrainians give a frick about this

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >non-slavs
              >good guy team
              Oh it's one of the neutral homosexuals.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                sorry man, only virtue signallers and locals give a frick. the rest of us grew up spelling it 'kiev' and hearing it called key-ev

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you adopt a trip so the rest of us can filter you?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Kiev
                Same here. It took me like 20 years to start calling Leningrad "St. Petersburg". I grew up with "Leningrad" so that’s what it was to me for a long time.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the current war has proven that no air superiority = long and ugly war.

    now you know why we throw ten trillion dollars at cool new jet

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US enjoyed air superiority in Korea and Vietnam...

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When anti-tank people point to the Ukraine war as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counter. They can’t just blame it on it on being Soviet shitboxes because good Western tanks are also getting wrekt. Ukraine doesn’t even use their Javelins anymore, just FPV drones flying RPGs into the roof / rear and the tank is dead. The only difference between an M1 and a T-90 is that the M1 will save the life of the crew but it’ll still be just as dead. Even without advanced top-attack munitions the Russians have been offing Western tanks with old-school ATGMs. China has been mass-producing a Javelin clone for a decade now and when a 70-IQ conscript is able to point-and-click a 50-ton $5m tank away with a $50k missile than it’s unironically over for tanks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >When anti-tank people point to the Ukraine war as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counte
      except for the fact that every army, ukraine and russia included, are focusing even more heavily on tanks

      >They can’t just blame it on it on being Soviet shitboxes because good Western tanks are also getting wrekt.
      except for the fact that western tanks are being destroyed in far fewer number despite being used in the heaviest fighting
      and they are being sent to places where fighting is the heaviest because thats where they will make the most difference

      > The only difference between an M1 and a T-90 is that the M1 will save the life of the crew but it’ll still be just as dead.
      saving the crew is a huge deal
      but M1s also have better situational awareness and can engage out to further ranges

      >it’s unironically over for tanks.
      its so over, that they are building new ones, upgrading old ones, and placing their tanks in armored divisions

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >yea but they’re still focused on tanks!
        What can I say, there’s a lot of institutional inertia. Russia has the world’s largest tank factory so maybe it’s inevitable that they keep pumping out tanks despite them being of very dubious value. In ww2 the U.S. put a huge amount of industrial effort into building battleships when the battleship was already obsolete, it was BORN obsolete just as the dreadnaughts were made obsolete by the torpedo. But, there was just so much institutional inertia that both the U.S. and Japan built these things which basically did nothing except get murdered helplessly by torpedoes and bombs. Tanks are the battleships of today.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What can I say, there’s a lot of institutional inertia
          or because they are highly effective

          >Russia has the world’s largest tank factory so maybe it’s inevitable that they keep pumping out tanks despite them being of very dubious value
          or because they need them to maintain their constant offensives
          even a bad tank is still a tank, and any tank is better than nothing

          > In ww2 the U.S. put a huge amount of industrial effort into building battleships when the battleship was already obsolete,
          they built 22 aircraft carriers from the ground up
          they built 4 battleships
          and finished 4 battleships from before the war
          they moved to the carrier as quickly as possible
          by contrast, the tank has kept on being the centerpiece of the army

          > But, there was just so much institutional inertia that both the U.S. and Japan built these things which basically did nothing except get murdered helplessly by torpedoes and bombs.
          battleships were not maintained out of mere inertia, they would have dominated the seas had war broken out in the 20s or 30s

          >Tanks are the battleships of today.
          tanks are the tanks of today
          the backbone of the army, as it was then as it is now

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there’s a lot of institutional inertia.
          or maybe they have access to information that you, a layman, do not possess?
          you see a highly biased feed of successful kills, nobody is going to upload an attack that failed miserably ('cept the russians when they get desperate).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What makes you think there wont be some invention that allows tanks to counter drones?

      think anti-tank rifles->armored skirts or magnetic mines->zimmerit (kinda useless)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There might be but it hasn’t appeared yet. Specifically on drones it was estimated a year ago that Ukraine was losing 10 THOUSAND drones a MONTH, probably mainly due to EW which Russia has a lot of (one major platform for every 10km of front). There’s the ubiquitous cope cages and now those jamming pods sitting on the roof of every new Russian tank — and they still manage to lose them constantly. Will a modern military with lots of anti-drone SHORAD make the difference? Maybe, but the fact is these drones are just an overwhelmingly superior value proposition. But even if drones are controlled we’re just back to point-and-click killers like Javelin and NLAW.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >There might be but it hasn’t appeared yet.
          its called, shooting the drone down

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the fact is these drones are just an overwhelmingly superior value proposition
          Maneuver warfare is always the most cost-effective option by far. The alternative is dying for yards.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because Infantry armed with drones outrange tanks now (can deploy the drone from 10km away, with repeater upt to 20km at Howitzer range), vs 2-4km, so the former will always find the latter first and kill It before It even has time to react or know that hit It.
        That has never happened before since previous anti-tank systems didn't give the infantry such an advantage in range and situational awereness. Even with a Javelin, both the MBT and the anti-tank crew would be evenly match, whoever finds the other wins, not with drones since they'll always find the tank 100/100 times

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          slow-moving drones get shot down easily by brigade-level anti-air assets

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The hider/finder competition is the real meta. Ppl born after the cold war don't understand how bad dumb artillery was, which was why tanks were needed then.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >meta
            >bad dumb artillery
            Confirmed fricking moron holy shit.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >in a perfect world we need two artillery battalions firing multiple volleys to destroy 23% of enemy tanks and 35% of mech infantry.
              >in reality, getting half of that performance would be good
              Now contrast with guided weapons like Javelin, then guided weapons with organic BLOS spotting like a FPV. Two jeeps stuffed with drone pilots could do the mission of those two artillery battalions with 40+ vehicles each.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except for the fact that arty hits from 40+ kilometers away, while with a Javelin you need visual range.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Javelin isn't competing against arty though (although maybe it could) it's being compared to tanks in that article. The point is dumb artillery couldn't wipe out mobile armored enemy groups, only disrupt them, so commanders needed tanks to do the bulk of the actual fighting. Javelins gave them some safety because the spotter teams calling arty could then finish off many tanks with Javelins instead of relying on tanks.
                Loitering munitions can do all three roles: spotting, long range, and reliable killing of mobile armored vehicles.

                https://i.imgur.com/k1fYwz1.jpg

                So, here are the main bullet points:
                >Tanks only work against an inferior enemy which doesn't have access to high tech weaponry

                Only a disingenuous moron or a dishonest homosexual would call for a fair fight, no, war isn't some ritualized combat, you either crush your enemy into a paste in the most asymmetrical and lopsided way or go home unless (you) want to be the one charging a numerically superior, more skilled and/or better armed opponent.

                >Drones can rack up enormous amounts of kills

                So you install APS, jammers and assorted EW systems, what now? Aliexpress drones and even ATGMs only work when the people you are fighting are so incompetent and corrupt they can't afford to ensure their own soldiers survival, which lead us to...

                >Tanks are obsolete because russians have been losing thousands of them by trying to use RA2 rhino tank rush IRL

                Russian apparently are still stuck in their WW2 combat doctrines, since they are mostly incapable of combined arms and have an extremely weak airforce when compared to their "peers" they will have to resort to the idiocy of launching tank and infantry waves in hopes some of them may be capable to punch through, we have actually seen better trained militaries do a decent job with the T-series, don't confuse an incompetent user with a bad product.

                >IFVs can do better than tanks

                There is a mix of survivor bias (remember the Leopard + Bradley pics spammed? Most of them were bradleys) with the fact russians have lost so much heavy armor nowadays autocannons are more than enough because when your enemy has been reduced to mobiks in golf carts a 120mm round is simply overkill.

                >So you install APS, jammers and assorted EW systems, what now
                Now commercial drones are worthless. But armies aren't going to buy commercial drones, they're going to buy $50,000 MIC "overpriced" abominations with EMP proof shells, specialized image recognition libraries and jamming-resistant SDR radios. Slavs have to build and fly 10 Wish drones to get 1 or 2 hits to upload to telegram. Firstie drones will be like Javelin or Switchblade. One shot one kill.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But armies aren't going to buy commercial drones, they're going to buy $50,000 MIC "overpriced" abominations with EMP proof shells, specialized image recognition libraries and jamming-resistant SDR radios. Slavs have to build and fly 10 Wish drones to get 1 or 2 hits to upload to telegram. Firstie drones will be like Javelin or Switchblade. One shot one kill.

                While in turn anti-drone systems will evolve, while it's nice for a tank to have as many defensive systems as possible they work in concert with AA, IFVs, artillery, dismounted infantry and so on, for every "we are going to create a counter-measure" there is always a "we are going to create a counter-counter-measure", if you consider Japan is building anti-drone lasers having very expensive automated drones would only be just another "let's see if this one goes through", in fact, energy-directed weapons may give new life to armored vehicles evolution as airforces work on the predicate they are extremely hard to hit, trying to evade an attack moving at the speed of light it's simply not possible,

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, and there are two obvious counters to loitering munitions. Lasers/ making every IFV a VSHORAD gun, and interceptor drones.
                While the former is common sense inevitability IMO, it tends towards a vulnerability to artillery because at the operational scale it rewards massing.
                The high reward option to me is drones like MORPHIUS (interceptors with multi shot weapons) because they can be dispersed, hidden, consume less logistic support and are somewhat longer ranged.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am starting to wonder if rather than spamming missiles and countermeasures we may need to come to a point when we just drop the Fern strategy and go full Megumin, heh.

                I mean, we may just come to the point when tactical no-nukes may be how wars are being fought on the future, in a way we are already there, we have a mix of absurdly powerful explosive weapons and "crew expendable" SpecOps.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bonus pic, Frieren team cosplaying as Kazuma team.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >interceptor drones

                you mean a missile?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Is that Black Ops 3?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/V4GDRIp.jpg

                Well, that's a "what if", to be quite frank I still think russians may give at least a passable defense when it comes to AA defenses, I don't get my hopes high though, as commented on [...] an actual economic and technological power such as Japan building energy directed weapons may be interesting to watch in the coming years, if they manage to truly create laser defenses then armored warfare would be back on the menu for decades to come.

                No. Tank has a chance of surviving a drone, or drone-spotted arty shelling, or ATGM hits, or any of the other threats on a modern battlefield. When properly upgraded, its chances of survival are actually quite high. IFV is vastly more vulnerable to those threats, and have far less long-range firepower so they also need to put themselves in harm's way. IFVs are better in the sense that they're cheaper, true, but so are civilian cars. Also e.g. a Bradley costs roughly the same as a T-90 while being far inferior by almost every measure.

                You can almost make anything survive if you put enough resources at it, but the question is, is it worth it?

                You can spend billions countering drones and artillery and air and mines to make the tank survive. But what does the tank counter. Machine guns that is a trivial target to any modern indirect fire? Other tanks that can't survive without a massive uber expensive CRAM net that can be picked apart cheaper via other means? You either can intercept hypersonics and knock tank sabots out the air, or you can blow up defensives via hypersonic missiles, so just put a Compact Kinetic Energy Missile on a drone with pop up standoff attack for reliable lethality against CRAM spam.

                Its like the Iowa, you can give it 4 AEGIS escorts and mine warfare cover and force it on to the enemy. But why do that when you can buy thousands of missiles and shoot it out of airplanes or submarines or the cruisers themselves with far more range and less effort?

                Trying to stack a shitton of defenses to close the distance to use some "strongest weapon" is dumb when offense is cheap and you can kill the enemy for far cheaper at range.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >is it worth it?
                Clearly, since the US still operates the M1 abrams in a front line role

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its true that if drones are not counterable than every weapon is obsolete other than a drone. But tank would be second on this list because it has the best protection at a reasonable price.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one won a war by dying slower. People win the war by killing the enemy before they kill you.

                If your hypersonic missile blows up drone staging points before they launch, you win~ for example. FPVs are cheap and kill lots at 10km range, but lots of weapons have more than 10km range and can kill FPV launchers.

                The relationship is: Range, Cost, Reliability of kill against defenses.

                Tanks have shit range, high costs and high reliability of kill. This is pretty bad. A good weapon should have at least 2 good characteristics.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tanks can put a cheap shell into something up to 10km away more or less instantly and cruise away while being invulnerable to anything other than a hefty warhead to the right weakspot. Nothing else can do the same nearly as well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >People win the war by killing the enemy before they kill you.
                which the MBT accomplishes by allowing them to force a breakthrough and maneuver within the battlespace
                which is exactly the job an ABCT

                you better give an example of an army of a developed nation that has followed your logic and eschewed tanks in favor of drones
                or any concentrated drone unit capable of maneuver on the battlefield instead of being a force multiplier

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tanks can put a cheap shell into something up to 10km away more or less instantly and cruise away while being invulnerable to anything other than a hefty warhead to the right weakspot. Nothing else can do the same nearly as well.

                >People win the war by killing the enemy before they kill you.
                which the MBT accomplishes by allowing them to force a breakthrough and maneuver within the battlespace
                which is exactly the job an ABCT

                you better give an example of an army of a developed nation that has followed your logic and eschewed tanks in favor of drones
                or any concentrated drone unit capable of maneuver on the battlefield instead of being a force multiplier

                A Kinzhal supposedly costs 10 million dollars, a T-64 costs around 1.1 million dollars, while the worst Kinzhals have done is wasting Patriots in a meme weapon, the T-64s operated by ukrainians have reaped many times their cost while provided us with kino videos, hence the tank wins over the hypersonic missile.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But what does the tank counter.
                The entire enemy army.

                In case you are (as I suspect) a clueless moron: The point is that "waht does this counter" is a fricking stupid question only a clueless moron would ask when defining the role of a piece of equipment within a combined arms doctrine.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Funnily enough you can easily figure out anyone talking about "counters" has shit military experience and comes directly from DOTA 2 pub, these guys apply videogame logic to their entire worldview, they don't understand reality isn't a a hardcoded set of specific situations but diffuse and random co-related situations, they are kant wannabes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's also obvious that they think "combined arms" works like a RTS' rock-paper-scissors unit types.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's also obvious that they think "combined arms" works like a RTS' rock-paper-scissors unit types.

                >But what does the tank counter.
                The entire enemy army.

                In case you are (as I suspect) a clueless moron: The point is that "waht does this counter" is a fricking stupid question only a clueless moron would ask when defining the role of a piece of equipment within a combined arms doctrine.

                Lots of equipment is designed to counter another. How much gun power should a tank have? To penetrate the UFP of the opponent tank. How much armor should a tank have? To defeat the HEAT warhead of opponent ATGM. It is standard gun-armor competition outside of requirements that is standard with all AFVs like terrain crossing and splinter protection.

                What is M1 designed to counter? Hoards of T-72s rushing fulda gap. Is that requirement important or relevant? No

                If you designed an armored vehicle to deal specifically with mines, Kornets, FPV and 152mm spam, it wouldn't be designed like M1.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what artillery shells that hit 40km+ ?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not only shells, but arty itself as well. IIRC Pzh2000 in AFU hit 35-45 km range depending on shell used, this is without rocket-assisted stuff and so on.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            slow-moving drones get shot down easily by brigade-level anti-air assets

            Look at what happened at Krynki, Ukranian marines with just drones and no AFV nor tanks managed to fend off wave after wave of Russian armored and mechanized counter attacks.
            Now Infantry + drones will always beat whatever mechanized or armored unit you throw at them.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Now Infantry + drones will always beat whatever mechanized or armored unit you throw at them.
              except for the fact that you need mechanized units to attack and take positions, otherwise footslogging infantry are vulnerable to encirclement

              which is why the primary unit is still the ABCT, not the IBCT

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You should avoid drawing too broad of a conclusion from the Russo-Ukrainian War.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/2HkLnA9.png

            >move 1 km
            Lancet says "Hi!"
            Boomers lost to zoomers gadgets again.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Lancet says "Hi!"
              why do dronegays always type like this?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/2HkLnA9.png

            very interesting thank you

            didn't russian columns get shredded in 2022 by drone adjusted artillery though? and that was ukranians firing one gun per target and not even doing proper barrages, or using high tech fusing, or modern rounds or anything

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >When anti-tank people point to the Somme as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counter.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >When anti-tank people point to the Winter War as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counter.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >When anti-tank people point to bocage country as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counter.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >When anti-tank people point to the Yom Kippur War as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counter.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >When anti-tank people point to AirLand Battle as proof that tanks are done for the pro-tank people have no actual counter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                uh oh

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Trying to equate the role a battleship to that of a tank.
                Gee, I can't imagine that the person writing this powerpoint is a dronegay.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That sure is a powerpoint slide.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hmm, what to believe. Your shitty powerpoint slide that is trying to make an absolutely moronic false equivalency, or the sum total of history?

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny watching morons who started paying attention in 2022 say that shaped charges to the tops of tanks is a new issue.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    America isn't dumping tanks. They're adding drones. good luck using your MCLOS FPV when autonomous VBATs go farther faster.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And the US is also adopting Golf Carts: https://youtu.be/c3C5nZ9QerY

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >infantry battalion
        Just wait until you see what they were running in the 80s, you illiterate dumb frick.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >using outdated Javelin when FPV drones exist

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't understand why they they don't even have wind shields. You will get the wind, dust, sand, snow, rain and water into your vehicle and on your troops and equipment making everyone more miserable. Now a tree branch can cause a casualty.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you squint, you can see a partial windshield on them.

          But realistically, weight is always going to be an issue with small vehicles like these. Deleting windows and windshields is several hundred pounds you can easily save with minimal loss of performance.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It confirmed my theories about artillery ruling the battlefield and the state of war devolving into the trenches but hey that viewpoint doesn't sell expensive new wunderwaffen :^)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Please stop using "wunderwaffen" when you mean "bog standard equipment"

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ability to target individual soldiers with <1000$ loitering munitions will change how war is fought especially at the lower tactical level.
    It is basically the solution for neutralising enemy combatants without LOS.
    The US army was willing to pay comparatively moronic money for switchblade, to be able to do this in Afghanistan.

    Right now human guided FPVs are vulnerable to jamming and they aren't able to mass fires because of the limitations of frequency bands and the number of drone pilots.

    Future autonomous drones however, will require direct sensor jamming to be defeated, which is much harder than omnidirectional communication noise jamming.
    They will also be able to mass fire as they will be no longer require constant communication and human piloting.

    Systems like gun or DEW based C-UAS will not be a magic solution because they require line of sight that can easily be broken by even small terrain features.

    The extremely low cost of potential mass produced strike drones creates very unfavourable cost ratios for defenders.
    And will force them to concentrate in ways that makes them vulnerable to other Indirect systems like artillery.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The US army was willing to pay comparatively moronic money for switchblade, to be able to do this in Afghanistan.
      Because the other methods to do so were less effective, and while it is also expensive, it was still arguably cheaper than the alternatives.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    wire-guided drones and repeater drones will laugh off any jamming attempts.

    Only way tanks will survive is with a serious air defense system and your own airpower.
    But if you have all that AA systems and airpower, did you even need tanks to begin with?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Push dozer blade and mine plow
      Cheap HE on per shot basis

      The fact that T-55 works shows that modern tanks are stupidly overbuild due to warthunder-brain making everyone a Hitler. Some cheapo robot tank with big gun shall do for the future.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, that must be why the Iraqi army famously won the battle of 73 Easting with an overwhelming victory thanks to their greater numbers of simpler, less capable T-62s and T-72s.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Wire guided
      Why bother when directional antenna exist honestly.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon they were railing radar systems with jamming into sidelobes in like 1960. Optically wired guided missiles are really hard to jam.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yet America replaced the wires on TOW with a radio link. Now the acronym is tube launched optically tracked wirelessly guided.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >wire-guided suicide drone
      That's an ATGM, bro. A MCLOS one at that.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No shit, when the frick has an MBT ever been utilized successfully against a capable army? 73 easting was a turkey shoot, and rusty T-55s canning each other in Africa doesn't count as warfare to me.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was a turkey shoot because they were using proper tactics WITH DECENT THERMALS in a fortunate environment, anon. I don't know if you've ever seen a photograph of what the thermals in an M1A1 look like, but bro at over 1.5 km you are seriously shooting at blobs. It was more equal than butthurt Iraqis want to admit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The future of offensive warfare will be drones, loitering munitions, PGMs, and fighter jets.
    Tanks will be replaced by IFVs armed with high-caliber autocannons linked to a radar capable of SHORAD/C-RAM and targeting ground targets in a pinch.
    These IFVs will be the first line of AA defense and protecting your offensive assets for any enemy that tries to get too close for comfort.
    And once the battlefield has been mostly cleared of the enemy and air dominance has been achieved, the IFVs will disgorge it's troops to enter and clear enemy occupied buildings/tunnels.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dronegays are insufferable.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >IFVs consist of the vast majority of AFV losses.
    >Roughly twice the number of IFVs destroyed as tanks.
    >Clearly this means IFVs are superior because... reasons.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The F-105 is worse than a cessna O-1 because losses

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because obviously the F-105 and O-1 experience the same levels of combat? moron.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Same for your post. You know that all this shit is meaningless without a real methodology. Ass pulled statements.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except you're ignoring the fact that tanks and IFVs literally operate together on the same battlefield, or have you already memoryholed all those pictures of both tank and IFV wrecks tangled with each other?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > operate together on the same battlefield, or
              yeah, because all steel waves are identical, there's no differences in number of each type of vehicles, etc.

              Not even an argument. Dimwits should be prohibited from using statistics.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This doesn't address the fact that IFVs are still being lost in huge numbers. So, what exactly makes them so superior to tanks?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In what situations a MBT would be better than a IFV...
                Does that situations happens frequently in Ukraine?
                ...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                do those*

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes? Countering other IFVs, being more resistant to autocannons and low grade AT weaponry, being able to neutralize hardened positions, etc.

                There's a reason why both mechanized and armored divisions run IFVs together with tanks. Neither is superior to the other, they fulfill different roles and cover each other's weaknesses.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                IFVs actually kill things before being lost, as opposed to tanks which die without doing anything.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine received hundreds of IFVs and only a couple dozen of Western tanks.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no it’s proven that intel and EWAR control the battle space

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, here are the main bullet points:
    >Tanks only work against an inferior enemy which doesn't have access to high tech weaponry

    Only a disingenuous moron or a dishonest homosexual would call for a fair fight, no, war isn't some ritualized combat, you either crush your enemy into a paste in the most asymmetrical and lopsided way or go home unless (you) want to be the one charging a numerically superior, more skilled and/or better armed opponent.

    >Drones can rack up enormous amounts of kills

    So you install APS, jammers and assorted EW systems, what now? Aliexpress drones and even ATGMs only work when the people you are fighting are so incompetent and corrupt they can't afford to ensure their own soldiers survival, which lead us to...

    >Tanks are obsolete because russians have been losing thousands of them by trying to use RA2 rhino tank rush IRL

    Russian apparently are still stuck in their WW2 combat doctrines, since they are mostly incapable of combined arms and have an extremely weak airforce when compared to their "peers" they will have to resort to the idiocy of launching tank and infantry waves in hopes some of them may be capable to punch through, we have actually seen better trained militaries do a decent job with the T-series, don't confuse an incompetent user with a bad product.

    >IFVs can do better than tanks

    There is a mix of survivor bias (remember the Leopard + Bradley pics spammed? Most of them were bradleys) with the fact russians have lost so much heavy armor nowadays autocannons are more than enough because when your enemy has been reduced to mobiks in golf carts a 120mm round is simply overkill.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Only a disingenuous moron or a dishonest homosexual would call for a fair fight, no, war isn't some ritualized combat
      I think the point isn't that wars should be resolved with swords at dawn, but that by spending trillions of dollars optimizing to oppress dirt farmers in the butthole of the world, you're crippling your military's ability to prosecute a war against a meaningful opponent.

      >ATGMs only work when the people you are fighting are so incompetent and corrupt they can't afford to ensure their own soldiers survival
      Seems like a waste to invest in ATGMs, no? Develop tools to fight a competent enemy and you'll be able to employ those tools just as effectively against an incompetent one.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I think the point isn't that wars should be resolved with swords at dawn, but that by spending trillions of dollars optimizing to oppress dirt farmers in the butthole of the world, you're crippling your military's ability to prosecute a war against a meaningful opponent.

        as a matter of fact we are discussing weapons and militaries in current real life scenarios, if you want to discuss the political aspects which lead to such scenarios you can go to the designated place at /misc/ where I am sure people will reply you in great abundance and with rich eloquence.

        >ATGMs only work when the people you are fighting are so incompetent and corrupt they can't afford to ensure their own soldiers survival

        Now, considering non-western electronics and russian ATGMs being so terrible there have been instances where they tracked the operator, while ATGMs can and have destroyed tanks I believe this in no way devaluates the capabilities of tanks, it only puts in evidence the arms race must continue, consider ukrainian battlelines have been supported with tanks and despite heavy losses to date they have managed to slow to less than a snail pace a numerically superior opponent.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but that by spending trillions of dollars optimizing to oppress dirt farmers in the butthole of the world, you're crippling your military's ability to prosecute a war against a meaningful opponent.
        But nobody, in the real world, is actually preparing for this sort of battle. The US has been moving away from COIN conflicts since 2015 or so (it just takes a while since you're dealing with, you know, the entire United States Department of Defense), and Israel is really conducting a suppression and cleanup operation to the point they had to release reservists from military duty because their actual task, fricking up Hezbollah or troops coming from Syria/Egypt didn't actually happen and it was starting to frick up their economy.

        Like what are you actually aiming at? Do you even know what these supposed trillions of dollars are being spent on? Do you think the Columbia Class SSBN (a $349 billlion US program, over its lifetime) is aimed at the Taliban?

        Like there is a wealth of publicly available information online about this shit. Why would you just reduce it to "haha america stomps illiterates they couldn't handle a real threat" like a dumbass? Why would you insist upon your reductionist headcanon being true in an actual argument? I don't get you people.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't get you people.
          It's ez. They're not interested in the truth or the specific field under debate. They have emotions which they're throwing up some token justifications to rationalize. Normie behavior.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tanks this, IFVs that, drones will replace everything and we should toss armored vehicles in the bin because I saw a video of one exploding a few times and it's all over now
    The only reason why everything is getting destroyed with such regularity is because neither side has proper air supremacy. If the Russians had it and kept it, it unironically would've been 3 days to the capital. If the Ukrainians had it, the Russians would likely be pushed to the pre war border by now. Simple as that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well yes. Once the logistics question is solved, the next governing factor of war is tempo, and neither side had the skill or equipment to generate it in the early days, hence trenches.

      If e.g. NATO was at war landmines wouldn't have been a problem, because Russia wouldn't have had months to set them up.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well, that's a "what if", to be quite frank I still think russians may give at least a passable defense when it comes to AA defenses, I don't get my hopes high though, as commented on

      https://i.imgur.com/6d8rero.jpg

      >But armies aren't going to buy commercial drones, they're going to buy $50,000 MIC "overpriced" abominations with EMP proof shells, specialized image recognition libraries and jamming-resistant SDR radios. Slavs have to build and fly 10 Wish drones to get 1 or 2 hits to upload to telegram. Firstie drones will be like Javelin or Switchblade. One shot one kill.

      While in turn anti-drone systems will evolve, while it's nice for a tank to have as many defensive systems as possible they work in concert with AA, IFVs, artillery, dismounted infantry and so on, for every "we are going to create a counter-measure" there is always a "we are going to create a counter-counter-measure", if you consider Japan is building anti-drone lasers having very expensive automated drones would only be just another "let's see if this one goes through", in fact, energy-directed weapons may give new life to armored vehicles evolution as airforces work on the predicate they are extremely hard to hit, trying to evade an attack moving at the speed of light it's simply not possible,

      an actual economic and technological power such as Japan building energy directed weapons may be interesting to watch in the coming years, if they manage to truly create laser defenses then armored warfare would be back on the menu for decades to come.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The only reason why everything is getting destroyed with such regularity is because neither side has proper air supremacy.

      seems like all that matters ultimately is just air supremacy then.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correct.
        Which is why NATO has been concentrating on achieving it for the last eighty years

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NATO has had air supremacy practically since it's inception. Did you mean specifically in Ukraine?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I meant in general.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has shown that Putins entire military can be collapsed by a few bored lads in warrior IFVs.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Tank has a chance of surviving a drone, or drone-spotted arty shelling, or ATGM hits, or any of the other threats on a modern battlefield. When properly upgraded, its chances of survival are actually quite high. IFV is vastly more vulnerable to those threats, and have far less long-range firepower so they also need to put themselves in harm's way. IFVs are better in the sense that they're cheaper, true, but so are civilian cars. Also e.g. a Bradley costs roughly the same as a T-90 while being far inferior by almost every measure.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It only proved that armor is a meme and cheap things are better than muh high quality
    Which everyone with a brain already knew

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dunno what's your point
        Tankers aren't expensive

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You get can thousands of drones for the cost of a single tank, that's the main point here.

          By using airpower and advanced technology(which Russia doesn't have lmao) to sniff out anything and everything that outputs an electronic signal and putting a JDAM up it's ass.
          Boom, no more drone operator.

          I like it how every victory over "dronegays" begins with technological and air superiority. What if you don't have that?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what if you don't have that?

            Then do what the Ukrainians/Russians are doing and install a shit load of EW assets everywhere and try to sniff out enemy drone operators for and arty/HIMARS strike, or supress them with artillery.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And that's how you end up with the drones dominating the battlefield.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But they aren't dominating you fricking mong.

                Both the ukes and Russians actively hunt down drone operators and still mount offensives using infantry and vehicles.
                Drones aren't a massive paradigm shift like you seem to want but just another facet of war now.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And 2/3 of those drones will get brought down by EW, and god knows how many will miss.

            By the way, all that drone footage we're getting is just the onest that were successful hits.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well yeah, but that's the thing, isn't it. Let's say you have a system which can destroy 90 % of the opponent's assets in a battle. Pretty effective, right? So the enemy comes at you with 10 modern tanks, 9 of them are gone - that's let's say 90 million bucks down the drain. For that kind of money, you can get tens of thousands of drones. 90 % percent of them gone? You still have enough left to decimate an entire brigade.

              >You get can thousands of drones for the cost of a single tank, that's the main point here.
              and those drones are used to support the tanks not replace them

              >I like it how every victory over "dronegays" begins with technological and air superiority.
              drones are just low and slow airplanes, the reaper and predator are much easier targets than any jet
              small drones are easier target still, since they are within range of MANPADs

              The "big" drones (Reaper etc.) are basically useless against an enemy with a functioning air defense. Too big, too expensive. Shooting down aliexpress drones with manpads is actually economic net negative.

              But they aren't dominating you fricking mong.

              Both the ukes and Russians actively hunt down drone operators and still mount offensives using infantry and vehicles.
              Drones aren't a massive paradigm shift like you seem to want but just another facet of war now.

              >Both the ukes and Russians actively hunt down drone operators and still mount offensives using infantry and vehicles.
              Yeah, and we see these get blown up on drone footage, lel

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he "big" drones (Reaper etc.) are basically useless against an enemy with a functioning air defense
                and smaller drones are even more useless

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A 500 dollar drone can blow up a tank. Have you been asleep for the past few years?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A $500 RPG-7 can also blow up a tank, if the stars align correctly, what's your point? FPV drones just made targeting a bit better and safer.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But you don't get "tens of thousands" moron, because you still need to transport them to the front, maintain them, train operators in using them(now including anti-drone tactics), scout ahead to actually find a target and then successfully hitting a target with the drone.

                Drones don't magically manifest out of thin air, and if you want to harden them against EW or boost their range etc. they can't be off the shelf drones but have to be modified, which takes time and money.
                >see these get blown up
                Who knew that shit blows up in war, incredible observation anon

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But you don't get "tens of thousands" moron, because you still need to transport them to the front, maintain them,
                Oh, and pray tell, what is more difficult to transport and maintain, a thousands drones or a single tank?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A tank fits on a single transport truck.

                Does a thousand drones fit on one?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, duh. You can fits dozens of them in a car.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >tiny quadcopters that can barely fit a hand grenade

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I ask again, have you been asleep for the past few years?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >have you been asleep for the past few years?
                >both ukranian and soviet successes primarily came from mechanized brigades

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you have a system which can destroy 90 % of the opponent's assets in a battle
                >because a machine-gun destroys 99.99% of an infantry platoon charging at it, an anti-ballistic missile system must certainly be able to destroy 99.99% of ballistic missiles charging at it.
                Grow up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again you are not getting the point. If a single machine gun emplacement destroys an entire infantry unit, it's a disaster. If a missile defense system defeats an entire drone attack, it's Tuesday. Plus, the drones were probably cheaper than the missiles used to destroy them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Again
                This is my first post ITT.

                YOU are not getting the point: you're functionally moronic to assume that Pk for one weapon system attacking one type of target is the same as Pk for another weapon system attacking another type of target. Never express an opinion on /k/ ever again.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >assume that Pk for one weapon system attacking one type of target is the same as Pk for another weapon system attacking another type of target.
                I'm not assuming that at all. I don't know what the real percentages are, nobody does. What I'm saying is that the "2/3 drones are lost to EW" type arguments are completely missing the point.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not assuming that at all. I don't know what the real percentages are

                Well yeah, but that's the thing, isn't it. Let's say you have a system which can destroy 90 % of the opponent's assets in a battle. Pretty effective, right? So the enemy comes at you with 10 modern tanks, 9 of them are gone - that's let's say 90 million bucks down the drain. For that kind of money, you can get tens of thousands of drones. 90 % percent of them gone? You still have enough left to decimate an entire brigade.
                [...]
                The "big" drones (Reaper etc.) are basically useless against an enemy with a functioning air defense. Too big, too expensive. Shooting down aliexpress drones with manpads is actually economic net negative.
                [...]
                >Both the ukes and Russians actively hunt down drone operators and still mount offensives using infantry and vehicles.
                Yeah, and we see these get blown up on drone footage, lel

                >90 % percent of them gone? You still have enough left to decimate an entire brigade.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's a hypothetical example, you cretin. I'm talking about the economics of warfare, not the actual efficiency of defensive systems in the field. Why the frick are you barging into my discussion when you don't even comprehend the points being made?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >MUH COST

                ah yes, the last cope of the moronic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                War is about numbers, brainlet.

                >I'm talking about the economics of warfare, not the actual efficiency of defensive systems in the field
                And you're making assumptions with regards to both which you have no way of knowing, so it's completely useless, like that spongy mass you keep inside your skull.
                >IF drones COULD be cost-effective by THIS MUCH then the tank WOULD be DEAD
                coulda, woulda, shoulda, you have zero clue so shut the frick up and stop wasting everyone's time

                [...]
                Cost IS important, but not when bruited about in the way this frickwit is.

                >And you're making assumptions with regards to both which you have no way of knowing, so it's completely useless
                We know the cost of a tank, and we know the cost of a drone. I don't need to know the exact efficiency numbers and ratios to make conclusions.
                >coulda, woulda, shoulda
                >wasting everyone's time
                Well, then the entire thread is a waste of time. In fact, most threads on /k/ are a waste of time by this logic. Yet you still chose to respond. Wasting even more time! Why don't you just frick off then?

                drone homosexual shilling is more annoying than hypersanic homosexual shilling because the latter supposedly gets paid. A drone homosexual does it for zero financial compensation out of nothing but dunning-kruger moronation

                >nooooo stop discussing weapons on /k/, you shill!
                Brainrot.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                there's discussing weapons and there's spamming your wrong, moronic opinions in a slide thread

                you still haven't answered how you want to deplete the ammunition of a diesel-powered laser system. SHORAD won the cost efficiency war, a laser pulse costs maybe $10 while an FPV will cost hundreds of dollars

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know this may sound shocking to you, but there is more than one "pro-drone" person ITT.
                > slide thread
                More brainrot.

                >you still haven't answered how you want to deplete the ammunition of a diesel-powered laser system
                I hope this actually works, energy weapons are probably the biggest case of blueballing in the history of warfare. I'll believe it when I see it in combat, though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but there is more than one "pro-drone" person ITT.
                and all these different people all sound exactly the same, curiously enough

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We know the cost of a tank, and we know the cost of a drone. I don't need to know the exact efficiency numbers and ratios to make conclusions.
                >A brand-new NATO main battle tank costs thirty million dollars in 2024.
                >A Glock 19 costs $600.
                >We don't need to know the exact efficiency numbers and ratios conclude that fifty thousand Glocks can certainly defeat a NATO MBT.
                Cease all production of anything but Glocks!!1!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If a $600 Glock could destroy an MBT from several km away, yeah, that would be an issue, would it not?

                >but there is more than one "pro-drone" person ITT.
                and all these different people all sound exactly the same, curiously enough

                Invest more points into Perception.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm talking about the economics of warfare, not the actual efficiency of defensive systems in the field
                And you're making assumptions with regards to both which you have no way of knowing, so it's completely useless, like that spongy mass you keep inside your skull.
                >IF drones COULD be cost-effective by THIS MUCH then the tank WOULD be DEAD
                coulda, woulda, shoulda, you have zero clue so shut the frick up and stop wasting everyone's time

                >MUH COST

                ah yes, the last cope of the moronic.

                Cost IS important, but not when bruited about in the way this frickwit is.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You get can thousands of drones for the cost of a single tank, that's the main point here.
            and those drones are used to support the tanks not replace them

            >I like it how every victory over "dronegays" begins with technological and air superiority.
            drones are just low and slow airplanes, the reaper and predator are much easier targets than any jet
            small drones are easier target still, since they are within range of MANPADs

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What if you don't have that?
            We should have air superiority, given that dronegays think everything that isn't a hobby drone is worthless.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nonsense, hi-tech airplanes have value precisely because they cannot be replaced by cheap drones. The problem is that building an airforce to achieve air superiority is expensive, and if you lose it, it cannot be rebuilt quickly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You get can thousands of drones for the cost of a single tank, that's the main point here.

            Go check how much shaheds costed the russians, now, I know you are pro-Hamas or at least anti-israeli because you have all the hallmarks of supporting underdogs, so here is one from your own news source:

            https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/25/which-countries-are-supplying-tanks-to-ukraine

            >I like it how every victory over "dronegays" begins with technological and air superiority. What if you don't have that?

            Already answered in

            https://i.imgur.com/k1fYwz1.jpg

            So, here are the main bullet points:
            >Tanks only work against an inferior enemy which doesn't have access to high tech weaponry

            Only a disingenuous moron or a dishonest homosexual would call for a fair fight, no, war isn't some ritualized combat, you either crush your enemy into a paste in the most asymmetrical and lopsided way or go home unless (you) want to be the one charging a numerically superior, more skilled and/or better armed opponent.

            >Drones can rack up enormous amounts of kills

            So you install APS, jammers and assorted EW systems, what now? Aliexpress drones and even ATGMs only work when the people you are fighting are so incompetent and corrupt they can't afford to ensure their own soldiers survival, which lead us to...

            >Tanks are obsolete because russians have been losing thousands of them by trying to use RA2 rhino tank rush IRL

            Russian apparently are still stuck in their WW2 combat doctrines, since they are mostly incapable of combined arms and have an extremely weak airforce when compared to their "peers" they will have to resort to the idiocy of launching tank and infantry waves in hopes some of them may be capable to punch through, we have actually seen better trained militaries do a decent job with the T-series, don't confuse an incompetent user with a bad product.

            >IFVs can do better than tanks

            There is a mix of survivor bias (remember the Leopard + Bradley pics spammed? Most of them were bradleys) with the fact russians have lost so much heavy armor nowadays autocannons are more than enough because when your enemy has been reduced to mobiks in golf carts a 120mm round is simply overkill.

            [...]
            [...]

            Lots of equipment is designed to counter another. How much gun power should a tank have? To penetrate the UFP of the opponent tank. How much armor should a tank have? To defeat the HEAT warhead of opponent ATGM. It is standard gun-armor competition outside of requirements that is standard with all AFVs like terrain crossing and splinter protection.

            What is M1 designed to counter? Hoards of T-72s rushing fulda gap. Is that requirement important or relevant? No

            If you designed an armored vehicle to deal specifically with mines, Kornets, FPV and 152mm spam, it wouldn't be designed like M1.

            Equipment are tools to achieve certain tasks, yes, some are more specialized, some are less, ideally your tool should be quite flexible, both MBTs and drones are useful because they are flexible tools, like bomber fighters, frigates and so on.

            Are infantry tanks and battleship obsolete? Most probably given contemporary warfare.

            Can they be useful on specific scenarios? Yes.

            Are their general types, the tank and the warship, still useful on the modern battlefield? Very much yes.

            Current iteration are the result of evolutionary pressures, and this will keep going for the foreseeable future.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can guarantee you that 18 months ago every dronegay ITT thought the Shahed was a mathematically uncounterable, epoch defining revolution in warfare.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They did

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USSRs collapse didn't prove communism wrong, it proved that Russians are too moronic for a post-feudal social structure
    The failure of market liberalization and democracy in Russia also didn't prove capitalism or liberalism wrong for the same exact reason
    And in much the same way this war has not invalidated the tank or any other military hardware, just showed that Russians can't use them responsibly any more.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How will "combined arms" save you from being annihilated by drones?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        brigades have their own anti-air weapons
        and brigades will advance under protection from the air force
        thats the point of a brigade, it has all necessary weapons attached as needed

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        By using airpower and advanced technology(which Russia doesn't have lmao) to sniff out anything and everything that outputs an electronic signal and putting a JDAM up it's ass.
        Boom, no more drone operator.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A chink "tourist" lmanaged to fly a DJI drone over the Japanese Izumo aircraft carrier without any reaction from the JMSDF: https://twitter.com/1024t66y/status/1773790000590823708
    https://twitter.com/1024t66y/status/1773722899515683208

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Implessive

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Implessive

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the current buffet has proven that apples > oranges

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How are dronegays gonna cope when miniaturised battalion level SHORAD gets rolled out?

    I guess this thread because all the major players are making an effort to integrate more SHORAD into their units, the US especially with their Stryker upgrades and EW
    pretty soon every new tank design will feature a RCWS autocannon with airburst capability and organic integrated EW jammers

    Tick tock dronegays

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      By sending a several waves of drones until SHORAD runs out of ammo.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        good luck

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >He thinks that lasers don't overheat lmao!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            real engineering isn't like your vidya where devs have to balance weapons. If your laser overheats you just slap more radiators on the sides of the Stryker, like you can see here

            https://i.imgur.com/2wEm4P7.jpg

            good luck

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >keep sending drone waves
        >get identified and geolocated in minutes
        >JDAM gets shoved up your ass

        GG no re

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >battalion level SHORAD gets rolled out?
      >battalion level
      Lol. At this rate you SQUAD level SHORAD.
      Like all combat vehicles need to have SHORAD capable RWS. All tanks, SPGs, at least one APC in infantry platoon etc.
      And you need it yesterday.

      Militaries are so behind current drones meta.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm willing to bet that soon every American squad vehicle will have at least one drone defeat weapon of some kind, even if it's a simple handheld jammer.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is the hard truth. Modern Western BCT AA units are just Stingers. stingers are fairly large. MIC should make some tiny anti-drone missile pods with 100 missiles and mount to every PC & tank. I short range mini-radar to pick up enemy drones and fire too.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    drone homosexual shilling is more annoying than hypersanic homosexual shilling because the latter supposedly gets paid. A drone homosexual does it for zero financial compensation out of nothing but dunning-kruger moronation

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he does it for free
      will drones obsolete Hot Pockets as well?

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kek, tanl boomers got eviscerated ITT by drone zoomers just like tanks get fricked up by drones irl.
    I the next peer war you gays will be meat waves while in your 40s meanwhile I will be commanding a gen Alpha tactical unmanned unit back home while you will do trench rushes in armored death traps on the banks of the Yantze river.
    See ya later millennial gays,you are going to be dronekill highlights in some chinksects tik-tok compilation.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >meanwhile I will be
      dead or dying from obesity / diabetes

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We've been trialing drones/drone swarms at CTC centers like fort Irwin and Hohenfels JMRC and from what I've seen and experienced with them (as a tanker, mind you) is that although you might occasionally get a kill with an FPV which is all well and good but surprisingly uncommon (if anything there's more kills on infantry with simulated grenade drops), the true power of the drone lies in
    1) scouting ahead for friendly tanks and sending back grids for enemy positions, basically talking friendly armor and infantry onto targets with near omniscience in real time (I can't overstate how powerful that is, it's an incredible asset to have and allows friendly mechanized and armor to punch way above their weight)
    2) Allowing for very fast and very accurate fires on targets of opportunity (2 Abrams in turret down defilade behind this IV line, grid 12345 67890, fire for effect) which is also super useful for allowing friendly armor to operate unimpeded
    My point I'm making is that the drone amplifies the ability of armor and vehicles to close with and destroy the enemy to a scary good degree. In my opinion, it makes tanks *more* useful, not obsolete whatsoever. It's still the main decisive factor in the battlefield and will be for the foreseeable future.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Powerful force multiplier makes everything easier.

      However from a design perspective the essential performance requirements change. For example:

      - Map hack means you can avoid engagements from dangerous LOS firing threats using terrain and smoke. Front armor importance is reduced.
      - Comprehensive situation awareness means you are not going to get jumped by a platoon of MBT at 500m and need fast reloading APFSDS while 2 shots off a side mount fire and forget can be sufficient sufficient.

      And so on. This thread is about how IFV is "sufficient" because the advantage of MBT over IFVs is not in the most essential capabilities like AA but marginal ones like saving money with cheaper ammo (Total scam with 80s electronics costs) or having a lot of armor on the front of turret when attacks come from all directions due to indirect and smart munitions.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So, like a larger scale version of the drone+infantryman combined arms teaming for clearing trenches?

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it was proved before, in desert wars

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Armored buggies are actually the future. Basically glorified golf carts, ATVs, lightly armored technicals. Modified versions of civilian vehicles to take advantage of economies of scale.
    >Cheap
    >Light weight
    >Can carry fairly large AA and supply power for electronic suite
    >Important areas can incorporate simple composite armor to survive small arms and shrapnel
    >Spread of jamming tech means sacrificial units needed to saturate front for friendly fly by wire or beam drones

    Drone dropped AT mine on an IFV kills 8 soldiers. Drone dropped AT mine on one of four properly spaced armored buggies kills 2 soldiers.

    Smaller munitions can disable a buggy but crew can abandon. Let's not act like an IFV is fully effective if a grenade explodes on key sensors.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >schizobabble

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Autonomous Golf Carts are the future

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