What's the obsession with armor when it's well known that the one who shoots first usually wins?

What's the obsession with armor when it's well known that the one who shoots first usually wins?
Also anti tank weapons will usually be a step ahead since they are easier and cheaper to implement.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The point of armor is having a chance to stop ATGMS/Sabots, and having a major chance to shrug off anything but sustained fire from lighter weapons.

    The thinner your armor, the less resources the enemy must devote to hurt you. If you're driving a tin can suddenly every belt of .30 cal AP becomes a threat.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Armor, while relatively easily outpaced by cheaper weapons, still functions to reduce your enemies' effective options against you and costs them time, money, and logistics support to utilize those better weapons. Infantry wear helmets not because it will stop a 50bmg between the eyes, but because it can protect against shrapnel and glancing hits from small arms. Same logic with vehicle armor; it might not stop a direct top down hit from a $70k javelin missile or a mine with enough explosives to send the entire hull into orbit intact or otherwise but if it's enough to prevent ubiquitous $200 rpg's and ied's from achieving a mobility/mission kill then it's clearly better than nothing, and if more armor effectively neutralizes enough anti-armor weapons to be cost effective versus the costs of losing vehicles and crew to lesser munitions then it's obvious to use the armor.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Competent tank crews are woth far more than the tanks they ride in (at least in western militaries) and take far longer to train than a tank takes to manufacture so even marginal increases in survivability are well worth it. An Abrams isn't really very expensive or difficult to make relatively speaking, they're something like $10 million per tank last I looked.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      try 30 million

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I guess having high armor, even if useless to protect the tank, it lowers the damage inside the tank.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Massive weakspot below the gun.
    Why not just stick a sign that says "Shoot me here" there?
    Are they stupid???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Massive weakspot
      this only works in war thunder

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        unlike everyone's favorite krokodil addiction simulator, APFSDS and HEAT-FS don't bounce

        >refuse to play sim
        >refuse to do offset gun camera (you can have the camera in your sight be in the irl spot of the gun sight so the point of aim and point of impact can be different depending on your zero and point of aim)
        >complain whenever you get realistic maps
        >complain whenever something more complicated than "RUSH THAT ONE HOUSE TEAM DEATHMATCH" is asked of you
        >come out of it going "IT'S REALISTIC!!!"
        i hate war thunder gays so much

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          So you're saying a shot under the turret in the massive cutout in the armor wouldn't penetrate?

          only morons think war thunder is realistic. it's a shitty arcade game no different from world of tanks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            An Abrams guy that I play War Thunder with said the weakness is real but real life accuracy makes it not an issue.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        unlike everyone's favorite krokodil addiction simulator, APFSDS and HEAT-FS don't bounce

        So you're saying a shot under the turret in the massive cutout in the armor wouldn't penetrate?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How would you do that outside spitting distance IRL without getting killed by the Abrams?
          Warthunder is a Russian krok fantasy game and their tanks do well there because the maps are largely unrealistic funnels, designed to force close-in engagement.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unlike everyone's favorite krokodil addiction simulator, APFSDS and HEAT-FS don't bounce

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its cope to blame the equipment, because machines can't argue for themselves when scapegoat needs to be found when its over. morons, grunts and officers, don't even need to point finger at each other, let alone themselves.
    The question is obvious, why did RPG men can easily find angle to engage a tank without worrying about much. He should have been worried about infantry pointing gun at him, if vehicles have an elevated mast that can vertically take point to see and engage roof rpg before they can peak further down into the armor below. Why can they easily borrow someone's balcony and bathroom and turn it into a fighting position?
    "yeah we just gonna up armor everything. John, AJ and Juan all could have lived if everyone is in Uparmored Abram mod 3 block 2 NIGG V3"

  7. 1 month ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Abrams have been hit with multiple anti tank missiles and rockets and recoilless rifles and sabots and kept fighting.Turns out depleted uranium HIP'ed into a erosion plate can negate the majority of anti tank weapons.

    The true enemy to tanks is they have a frick huge signature that's hard to reduce if the enemy has persistent ISR like drones or battle field radars.

    Can't hide em for long

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    better armor means the enemy has to engage from a closer distance and give you a better chance to fire first
    better armor means that you cannot be forced to redirect your advance by weapons your armor is designed to protect against and so increases the odds of a better position and therefore a better chance of a first shot

    a dune buggy with a cannon on it could be perforated by small arms
    as even an enemy fireteam with no heavy weapons poses a severe threat to the crew they can, under no circumstances, ever be surprised by even the smallest enemy unit and would travel slowly and under concealment under all circumstances
    so heavier armor is preferable so that even enemy mortars and GPMGs would not insantly kill the crew, and the heavier the better to increase the types of weapon that would not kill you

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It forces the enemy to use and develop anti tank weapons. Kinda like "fleet in being" concept. You can have all fighting being done by lighter vehicles, but the enemy infantry would always pack anti-tank weapons just in case something with a heavier armor comes around.
    Also, first one to shoot wins, but that applies to only more modern anti-tank weapons and tank vs tank fights. Tanks can survive some things other armored vehicles can't which adds some niche usecases.
    But in general, yeah, the role they play is smaller than cold war era. THey still have a role to play though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You can have all fighting being done by lighter vehicles
      lighter vehicles exist mostly to support the heavy vehicles
      the armor isnt a fleet-in-being, its used to deliberately engage and encircle the enemy

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We need to bring back heavy tank production.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >when it's well known that the one who shoots first usually wins?
    Because this is not always the case, and scoring that takes effort.
    >Inb4 some /misc/estinian putting a shaped charge
    So yeah, ok, that happened, now put recurrence of success of such attacks, not really good, one of the things with having good armor is while the tank ends up non-viable for battle both the hull and crew survives, which in turn means you can evacuate the battlefield, get repairs, treat the wounded, effectively saving you millions of dollars and PR.

    This actually explains the difference of doctrine between western and non-western countries, whereas NATO MIC did as much as possible to ensure tank survivability be it armor, shape or speed, PACT built glass cannons with autoloeaders which were expected to swarm enemy units despite heavy losses, then again, when next election won't kick you out because you lost over 5000 tanks and their crews in a botched conquest of a neighbor country

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Look, buddy...

    we get it. You want the T-72 to be good and respected.

    But this is grown-up time. Your favorite tank was never good to begin with.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are an obsolete concept anyway. The quicker we retire these driving coffins the better.

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