Why are tanks so easy to destroy.

Why are tanks so easy to destroy. I've grown up with the idea that they've got some sort of invincibility until the day I saw them mogged the frick out in Syria by RPG7 a decade ago and the war in Ukraine is not only confirming my disappointment with tanks but also reinforcing it with Western made tanks only barely in better shape than their Russian counterparts. Did anti-armor weaponry get better or did tanks just fail to adapt

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Panzerfaust did similar work in the second world war. All that's different is a lot of shit. But mainly quantity has a quality all its own.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks have never been invincible, its just a lot better than trying to operate a field gun without armor and a self propelled tracked mount.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I've grown up with the idea that they've got some sort of invincibility
    Only during the Gulf War, tanks have always been wiped out in big numbers (even in successful battles) except in 1991.
    Even in the Six Day War the Israelis lost 400+ tanks, and that's before the Arabs got the Sagger.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks always were 'disposable'. Since WWI, most field guns designed in 1890-1910 could destroy any WWI tank.
    The only deviation were asymmetrical conflicts were even the destroyed tanks could be ***recovered***.
    During WWII ~100,000 armored vehicles were 'lost', a lot of them by the front line movement after a simple mechanical failure, mines.
    Soviets lost a lot of tanks during COIN/rebellions because they simply didn't recover those old tanks.
    Iraq was so lopsided that the only chance to disable a M1 was with large IEDs.

    In first place the "destroyed" term isn't something well defined. Some countries would fix the tank of your pic... Another matter is crew survival.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why exactly are modern countries unable to make tanks in any significant quantity anyways? Why were the Soviets able to produce 100,000 T-55s yet Russia can only make ~240 T-90Ms a year (not even sure if they make new hulls for them or just use T-72s) and I'm not even gonna touch on the laughable quantities thr US and Germany make

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because of the electronics required for modern things like stabilizers and thermals.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The T-55, T-34, M4, Pz-III were exceptions. For most MBT and mediums 5-10k per decade is the usual production rate.
        Pre-1960 (ATGM) the only thing actually killing a tank was another tank/heavy gun, that's why tanks were more numerous. Nowadays the a MBT must be far better than any other AFV to exists, numbers are screwed in favor of complex and more expensive designs so they're fewer. Current CAS, ATGM makes comparisons using tank-vs-tank numbers kinda meaningless.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Pre-1960 (ATGM) the only thing actually killing a tank was another tank/heavy gun,

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now you're limited by terrain to avoid the problem of accuracy, range and enemy arty. HEAT is only effective when it hits.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >HEAT is only effective when it hits.
              As opposed to KE?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Compare the effective range of super bazooka, RPG-2/7 with a 100mm/90mm or the average engagement distance during WWII/Korean war.
                They can destroy tanks, they're useful with a favorable terrain but you can't use them as basis for your anti-armor doctrine. GMs changed that in far greater extent than AT unguided rockets.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >super bazooka, RPG-2/7
                and recoilless rifle*

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Pre-1960 (ATGM) the only thing actually killing a tank was another tank/heavy gun
          NO
          tanks were vulnerable throughout their history - at start of WW2 most/all tanks were were so lightly armored that ewen man portable rifle was able to pen them - later came AT grenades, drones (yes during ww2 - goliaths) panzerfausts bazookas... and of course do not forget about mines and artillery destroying/disabling tanks since day one

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tanks had 500~2500m effect range, anti-tank had 0 to 100m range unless it is completely immobile At-gun or total rng crapshoot with arty. A single Tiger or Kv-2 on a hill used to be operational level problems that can stall formations for a day.

            Today any tank on a hill is simple to combined arm force larger than a platoon.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >larger than a platoon.
              if you got javelins or other atgms not even that

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even with javelins, stryker companies get smoked by armored companies in exercises

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A single Tiger or Kv-2 on a hill used to be operational level problems
              that's where attack planes (first dive bombers and later attack craft armed with missiles and/or at canons or simply artillery come in - at the end of ww2 Germans were truly terrified of allied airforce and planned offensives for when bad weather/overcast was expected (Ardennes fe)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they didnt need the factories anymore so they decommissioned them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because there was no need for them in the past 40 years so production facilities don't exist to produce them in such numbers anymore. Tanks in the west are, for the most part, built by private companies operating on the free market, if there are no orders for thousands of tanks they won't built and maintain facilities to produce thousands of tanks. Tanks are exactly the same as all other commodities, supply and demand. If you're not buying thousands of tanks then no one is going to make thousands of tanks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why exactly are modern countries unable to make tanks in any significant quantity anyways?
        smaller factories

        > Why were the Soviets able to produce 100,000 T-55s yet Russia can only make ~240 T-90Ms a year (not even sure if they make new hulls for them or just use T-72s)
        USSR is just much bigger than the russia economically
        they also had strategic impetus to make so many, because a massive overmatch in army size was the only counter-balance they had to a US nuclear strike

        > and I'm not even gonna touch on the laughable quantities thr US and Germany make
        US isnt at full-time war production like they were in WW2
        M4s were pumped out of multiple factories running 3 shifts a day
        the M1s are currently only made at a single factory with a emphasis on refurbishing old hulls to modern standards, there simply isnt a war big enough to warrant 10,000 M1s in a single theatre

        wartime economy is bad for the economy as a whole, so the US isnt going to go into it unless theres a serious reason
        pressed car company, ALCO, FMW, lima locomotive all went out of business less than 10 years after the war ended because orders for their tanks disappeared with the reduction in army size
        ford and chrysler kept existing only because they had massively diversified portfolios that allowed them to keep contracts after the war

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Armies are much smaller today than they were in the past, and quality has largely replaced quantity as the deciding factor in war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well you need a huge infrastructure to build a modern tank and Putin stole most of the extra cash for 20 years lol

        Tank is like saying aircraft. You can mass produce some cheap and others really expensive.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Cobson would never have such a garbage take on Tanks

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Armor just needs to evolve.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hard outer shell
      >claws on front
      replace the tracks with multiple legs and the final step of evolution (crab) will be complete

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Carcinization of tanks
        It was inevitable.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are tanks so easy to destroy.
    they arent

    > I've grown up with the idea that they've got some sort of invincibility until the day I saw them mogged the frick out in Syria by RPG7
    think about the circumstances necessary to knock a tank out with an RPG
    you need a side shot or roof shot, only possible at close range and in built up terrain and when no supporting arms are near a tank

    now consider what it takes to defeat an IFV, an M2 bradley can only survive an RPG shot with ERA, and then only once
    while you need RPG spam to even stand a chance of knocking a tank
    a humvee doesnt even need that, it can be knocked out with HMG fire or enough rifle fire

    >reinforcing it with Western made tanks only barely in better shape than their Russian counterparts.
    russians are chimping out that they captured a single M1A1
    russian T-72s are being knocked out in far greater amount

    >id anti-armor weaponry get better or did tanks just fail to adapt
    anti-armor weapons are getting better, but tanks have more than kept up
    an M1A1 abrams is more resistant to RPGs than the M4 sherman was to panzerausts

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turns out you were mistaken. Maybe read a book from time to time?
      >western tanks are only marginally better
      True, but they are still better, especially at preserving their crews. They are by no means indestructible, though.

      >T72 knocked out in greater number
      Anon, there are orders of magnitude more T72s than western tanks engaged in this war, of course more get destroyed. Western tanks perform better in a lot of ways, but your reasoning is faulty.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that you literally need specialized weapons just to deal with tanks means they work. Having anti-tank weapons is another logistical burden you and the enemy have to deal with, and not having them means you're fricked. Also, the Ukraine war being proof that the tank is dead doesn't hold any water when both Ukraine and Russia are jumping through fricking hoops just to get more AFVs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Also, the Ukraine war being proof that the tank is dead doesn't hold any water when both Ukraine and Russia are jumping through fricking hoops just to get more AFVs.
      This. The same goes for people proclaiming drones are the biggest thing in the war while both sides frantically try to secure artillery ammunition.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's a tale as old as time that a new technology will make everything else before it obsolete, instead of just being another addition to combined arms warfare. Even the humble spear arguably hasn't gone anywhere (bayonets), it's just a lot more niche now.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's a tale as old as time that a new technology will make everything else before it obsolete, instead of just being another addition to combined arms warfare

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's harnessing the power of his Mongol ancestry

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Indonesian soldiers get slaughtered by native bows to this day even though the natives have plenty of automatic weapons.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Indonesian soldiers get slaughtered by native bows to this day even though the natives have plenty of automatic weapons.
              Yeah. At least they aren't blown to bits. I think it's not only that bows are silent but to send a message.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I should also clarify, this isn't necessarily true when said tech is a direct upgrade. Like horse drawn carriages vs motorized vehicles (altho you can probably find autistic use cases for horses if you try hard enough). People just mistake one thing for a direct upgrade instead of filling a new niche or complementing another thing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There was one, as recently as the start of OEF. It was easier to use horses in the opening days than it was for motorized or mechanized platforms. It was a very limited use case. I believe Mules were also used at one point as beasts of burden.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Ukrainians were hoarding arty shells for the kill box trap they just sprung. They were lying About shortages to confuse Russians and get more faster. They did this less before less than a year ago.
        Russians just keep falling for it

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /k/ has a weird belief system that the US privately produces tanks — it does not. The M1 is built at the Lima Army Tank Plant which is a government-owned factory controlled by the Department of Defense and managed by General Dynamics. It’s been almost closed down several times over the last 15 years and only kept alive with emergency political support.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MBTs have heavy front and turret armor. Killing one involves disabling the drive system or hitting the engine. Russian tank design wasn’t that clever and favored firepower over survivability.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Russian tank design wasn’t that clever and favored firepower over survivability.
      That's not entirely true, the problem was their survivability was in large part based on the fact they were smaller and lower profile and as such presented a smaller target, which might have been great before modern fire computers, gun stabilizers, laser range finders, thermal cameras, etc, became common and reliable enough.

      Then the Soviet union took a nosedive and what came out was a Russian state with a bunch of tanks and no money so crappy modernised soviet tanks is the best you get.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I've grown up with the idea
    that's a (you) problem

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks.have always only been able to withstand punishment from the frontal arc.
    FPV drones can now reliably target areas that were always considered as "if they hit you here you've already fricked up and there's no saving you" weak spots such as the rear of the turret, where even the most basic of HEAT warheads will be enough to penetrate.
    Modern ATGMs have enough penetration to spare to wipe out any MBT in existence anyway.
    The key to using MBTs is not giving the enemy the chance to employ the MBT-killing weapons effectively.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The key to using MBTs is
      having air superiority
      > employ the MBT-killing weapons effectively
      destroy their MTBs from air

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        air superiority won't kill those atgm and drone teams.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Air superiority inherently makes logistics hell, so those tank hunter teams are left without a pretty important thing - munitions and forward operating base.
          And then get clustered all the way to Narnia.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok that's true. but you will not have complete AS against a nation like ukraine that has a shitload of manpads or donated equipment. or russia.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              True. Desert Storm was probably the last time true air superiority was demonstrated.
              Towelhead deletions in Afghanistan don't count, and Serbia was straight up corpsecamped.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what are air to ground munitions

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >air superiority won't kill those atgm and drone teams.
            It literally will homosexual.

            Air superiority inherently makes logistics hell, so those tank hunter teams are left without a pretty important thing - munitions and forward operating base.
            And then get clustered all the way to Narnia.

            If air superiority can kill single dude popping out of hide-y hole for 20s shot, air superiority can kill everything and you don't need a tank, certainly not one with 120mm APFSDS optimized gun to kill other tanks since the other side can not have tanks against this much airpower.

            If you have air power, you get some namer or breacher-engineer vehicle or super MRAP because air power doesn't kill mines.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >air superiority won't kill those atgm and drone teams.
          It literally will homosexual.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if it comes low enough to target those atgm teams, it's in the crosshair of a manpad team.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Keep in mind, for every measure there will eventually be a countermeasure. For every extinction of a category of systems, there are first a hundred evolutions.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are tanks so easy to destroy
    because engineers spent the better half of the last century to come up with more and more effective anti tank solutions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >because engineers spent the better half of the last century to come up with more and more effective anti tank solutions.
      which have been countered with advances in tank protection

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah but anti tank is most of the time ahead of the protection. you can also eqiup your infantry way more faster with your newest tankfister2000 than you can equip all your tanks with the corresponding countermeasure. also if you use 60 year old tanks like the russians do all of that doesnt matter they just get fricked.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >yeah but anti tank is most of the time ahead of the protection.
          tanks are currently far better protected against current threats than they ever have been in the past

          > you can also eqiup your infantry way more faster with your newest tankfister2000 than you can equip all your tanks with the corresponding countermeasure.
          infantry and tanks have been re-equipped at relatively equal rates
          the M1 has actually been upgraded much more often than the M2 bradley has
          with 3 different SEP packages in the 2000s and the E3 on the way

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >tanks are currently far better protected against current threats than they ever have been in the past
            against 60yo RPG-7s and even that can frick up modern tanks from the side
            >current threats
            zero protection against drones

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >against 60yo RPG-7s and even that can frick up modern tanks from the side
              RPG-7 can only defeat the lower side hull
              side turret is immune, front turret is extremely immune

              >zero protection against drones
              main threats are ATGMs and handheld rockets
              protection against them is good against a frontal 90-degree arc
              this is very good protection
              side-shots require flanking by enemy forces which is unlikely

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >protection against them is good against a frontal 90-degree arc
                >this is very good protection
                i think you missed those fat ass tandem-heat atgms with 1200mm+ pen atgms or top attack atgms

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i think you missed those fat ass tandem-heat atgms with 1200mm+ pen atgms
                M1A2 can frontally resist those

                >or top attack atgms
                M1A2 SEP3 has APS

                in any case, it achieves extremely high protection against modern weapons

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >M1A2 SEP3 has APS
                No videos of APS actually working in Gaza.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No videos of APS actually working in Gaza.
                it has a 90% interception rate
                the 10% was from people forgetting to turn it on because they were not expecting an attack

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it has a 90% interception rate
                Believing what the israelites say.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >main threats are ATGMs and handheld rockets
                Not anymore, stop coping.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >stop coping.
                ironic, considering this is drone cope
                the ATGM is still the primary anti-tank weapon at the regiment level and below

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are tanks so easy to destroy.
    It's much easier and faster to mass produce the newest anti tank weapon than to produce new tanks that can counter it.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tanks were never meant to be sent alone in recon missions as russia and ukraine seem to do. Factor in the use of drones and you get an incredibly vulnerable, almost blind metal box rolling around. Also, you don't really need to completely destroy a tank in order to neutralize it. If you frick up it's mobility or optics then it's over. Most "destroyed" tanks are mobility kills, later finished off so they can't be brought back and repaired. All in all, tanks were always weak to lots of things.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tanks are 60 tons of steel, they aren't easy to destroy, some groups(russo's) are very sloppy with ammo storage though
    same shit that killed ships in ww2

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All that steel needs a hole the size of a dime to channel liquid molten metal. Or an open hatch for a drone-dropped grenade to fall into. IFVs are the future of 'tanks'. They'll get rekt too but costs much less and can carry troops.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >All that steel needs a hole the size of a dime to channel liquid molten metal
        dime-sized hole leads to poor-post pen effects

        >Or an open hatch for a drone-dropped grenade to fall into
        no one keeps their hatches open when you have RWS and CITV

        >Vs are the future of 'tanks'. They'll get rekt too but costs much less and can carry troops.
        IFVs literally exist to support tanks
        the future is MBTs and IFVs in a combat team
        this is literally how US armored brigades operate, with 2 tank companies and 1 mech infantry company
        the IFV is a complement to the MBT, not a replacement

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are tanks so easy to destroy
    They exist for more than a century so the civilization had a plenty of time to come up with ideas of countering them.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are there to be major inconveniences to non-mechanized infantry and non-tank accompanied mechanized infantry. They're not worth a whole lote outside of the framework of combined arms to open the window of opportunity for war of movement exploitation & big gains as against static positional/attrition warfare. Drones are overtaking the aggressive recon role from armor and light infantry over in Ukraine, but push come to shove they will be a lot less of an issue once proper combined arms, SEAD, and deep strike on logistics/force concentrations prolapse the area of operations for an actually high tech (Western) strategic offensive is in play. Displace the drone operators (or shellack their operating bases) faster than they can displace, and they're not relevant (and all this is in isolation from EWS, and presumably a deficit thereof following such thorough battlespace preparation.

    SPG & Assault Gun Infantry Tank baby sitters is just a feature the static positional war being fought by two second rate powers at best; direct fire support from the tank is handier, faster and cheaper than calling in artillery much of the time. Heavier automated mortar carriers will probably be favored by NATO powers over sitting expensive MBTs that could be held for proper attacks (or fire brigade reserves to plug holes) for places not using things like the US' Booker.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Tanks are there to be major inconveniences to non-mechanized infantry and non-tank accompanied mechanized infantry
      tanks are there to maneuver and breakthrough on the battlefield
      the main destruction of enemy forces will come from the encirclement, which is done with fast-moving, hard-hitting, units liek tanks

      >They're not worth a whole lote outside of the framework of combined arms to open the window of opportunity for war of movement exploitation & big gains as against static positional/attrition warfare
      nothing exists outside of a combined arms framework
      infantry exist to support tanks, artillery exists to hold enemy positions in place

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