Why is it so much?
Most tanks:
>Main gun
>1-2 machine guns
>holds 3-4
This
>Main gun
>12.7mm HMG
>Automatic grenade launcher
>60mm mortars
>Three 7.62mm machine guns
>Carries entire IFV worth of soldiers
Also, does this make it just a very well armored IFV?
It’s the desperate attempt of keeping the tank somewhat relevant. At least it can now carry troops until it’s blown up by a man portable system or drives on a mine.
The next empire that will succeed the US will get rid of tanks altogether. Built to overcome machine gun nests, they have been obsolete since 1946.
>they have been obsolete since 1946
moron
From the moment tanks came into existence, there have been man-portable weapons that can kill it, from AT rifles, to rocket launchers, ATGMs to drones.
But the role of “armored gun to support infantry” has never become obsolete, Russian tanks getting blown up by Javelins and German/Ukrainian Leopards getting btfo by mines doesn’t change this
You are so dumb, sweaty. If an cheapo pressure cooker with a directed charge is able to delete your multi million dollar equipment without it having any way of defending itself, you get rid of it.
When any infantryman with an 18.000 £ rocket can just lock on and delete your shit, you get rid of your shit.
Tanks bring nothing to the battlefield. A big gun? Get loitering munitions. Have the artillery fire from farther way, whatever. Tanks have no role except for target practice n
> If an cheapo pressure cooker with a directed charge is able to delete your multi million dollar equipment without it having any way of defending itself, you get rid of it.
If a $0.10 5.56 can delete your infantryman, get rid of infantry
False equivalence. It takes 10,000 bullets on average fired on a battlefield to actually kill somebody.
Why do you even bother making posts like these? It isn't for any earnest discussion. Nobody is paying you. Is it a sexual thing? Do you get erotic gratification from making /k/ worse?
is like pig in shit
they just wallow in it
not a sexual thing I don't think
They have these threads and posts on /misc/ all the time. It's literally an FSB psyop to try and convince the loud schizos in the west that tanks are obsolete despite every single breakthrough in the war being spearheaded by, you guessed it, tanks.
The question of whether or not tanks are obsolete is less a question of cost-to-destroy vs cost-to-build and more a question of "What do we have that can do the job that a tank does better?"
Let's step back for a second and acknowledge the role of the modern tank - it's an armoured breakthrough element, designed to act (and used, in competent militaries) as the spearpoint of an offensive action. It's mobile, protected firepower that can put shells into people and resist weapons fire in return. Yeah, it's vulnerable to destruction from the air, ambush by infantry, or long-range missile attack, but so is almost any other platform that could conceivably replace it. The key to ameliorating the weaknesses of the tank is combined arms. You employ them in their proper role, with other arms of the military supporting it. Infantry to screen, aircraft and SPAA to defend it against airstrikes, and long-range fires to destroy/disrupt entrenched enemies (all examples, reality is always more complicated). Smoothbrains that hear that say something to the effect of "well if it needs so much support, it's useless!", but they're missing the point that modern warfare has deep integration of different elements for maximum effectiveness and that if you can't understand that you should go back to that website. Every individual part relies on the others for mutual support and defence. In this environment, the tank provides rapid, protected firepower that can operate more confidently while under fire and apply direct fire to destroy bunkers, entrenched enemy positions, and other tanks. They aren't invulnerable to enemy fire by any means, but they're a lot less vulnerable than infantry or light vics. So you need something to fill that role. What else has the speed, firepower, and protection that a tank does? Nothing, because anything that did, with modern technology, would just be a tank.
Exactly
These people always forget as well that infantry will die if anything so much as sneezes on them. You can be as much of a high speed low drag operator as you want but you'll still be turned into confetti if a mortar bomb goes off within a couple of dozen metres of you.
>What is combined arms warfare
What do you do against a complete brigade sized tank element rushing your position with air support and a previous precious guided artillery barrage?
You cannot load your ATGMS fast enough before your positions get overrun by 80 tons of steel doing 50mph while raining hell on you with thermals from kilometers away.
Tanks are not obsolete, the way tanks are used just needs to be adjusted.
You fricking leave and let the brigade have whatever they were charging. You go frick up something on a different front.
The only way to expediently deal with a large armored force is air power. Maybe a precision artillery ambush, but have fun pulling that off.
israeli tanks have HuGE armaments
Khazar heritage
You can attack with EVERY ranged weapon during the shooting phase.
Geeze..read a book for once.
>Carries entire IFV worth of soldiers
they don't, please let this meme die, the IFV version of Merkava is Namer. The tank does not carry dismounts. Yes it has a hatch in the rear. No they don't fit.
If you want the non-meme answer, it's because it's been specifically tailored to suit the type of combat the IDF gets into, which is mostly blowing up insurgents etc. which is why there's an excess of anti-personnel weapons. It's a piss poor "IFV" though and can barely fit anything inside, it's a tank that can sometimes moonlight as a shitty IFV or serve as a very heavily armored medevac vehicle with very limited capacity.
It stays in country and has no need to be shipped anywhere. It never gets loaded onto boats or planes, so it can be made as heavy as they want it to be.
>Carries entire IFV worth of soldiers
It can't though
attempting to do more with less
It can carry like two extra guys in the back but they have to throw most of the ammo out as a compromise.
the mortars are just smoke launchers. i never understood why people try to claim them as weapons or even 'mortars'
To what extent would mortars even improve the capabilities of a tank anyway? I could see the use of highly mobile IFV incorporating them to support infantry assaults, but I'd think they'd be a relatively little use to an MBT.