Best Tank

[The Macabees]

You can't, because you're stuck with 'tanks are cool', you've shown no understanding of modern warfare, it's easy for me to say as well.

I can't what? I told you to read my prior posts, where I do give you plenty of empirical evidence which supports my position. All you keep doing is setting up straw men, in a vain effort to "prove me wrong". You haven't even established a defensible position, yet.

Plenty of ways better than an inefficient tank.

How?

[Barringtonia]

by Chernobyl-Pripyat » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:42 am - psychological effect on the enemy.

That is the first effective argument I've seen, and it's true, a tank is psychologically powerful in subduing the enemy,

Ultimately effective though, I'm not so sure.

[NERV arms conglomerate]

the Abrams, seeing as how the M1 model has supposedly never been destroyed in battle, ever. Wounded but never defeated.

Hmm....





I believe thats Destroyed

Nope. It still works. All you gotta do is give it to some hard working Puerto Ricans and it'll be awesome!

or just the US army, they take(nearly) every M1A2 back to the use then repair them

[The Macabees]

That is the first effective argument I've seen, and it's true, a tank is psychologically powerful in subduing the enemy

Evidence that you haven't been reading my posts, since I mentioned that a while back.

[Lizardiar]

Name me one area where the tank is indispensable?

I already have in prior posts. I'm not going to repeat myself, if all you do is ignore the arguments presented to you, set up a straw man and then call it a day.

You can't, because you're stuck with 'tanks are cool', you've shown no understanding of modern warfare, it's easy for me to say as well.

by Lizardiar » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:39 am

Could the stryker be used to clear a building safer than a tank? Instead of sending in soldiers to possibly die, the tank can fire an explosive shell into it. Also the tank in urban warfare is much safer than a stryker. Do you think the soldiers care about cost when they are being attacked? They probably think the tank is a godsend in that situation. I would take human lives over money any day.

Plenty of ways better than an inefficient tank.

You say they are inefficient, but they do an incredible job.Soldiers don't care if the stryker can do a few things better. A tank has always had the soldiers hearts. The tank is this monster of the battlefield and the soldiers feel that way. They feel a lot safer with a tank than with a stryker.

[Barringtonia]

by The Macabees » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:43 am - This was indispensable during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in the city of Tyre.

Yes, let's go back 30 years again.

How?

No, your turn, show me how a tank is indispensable.

[The Macabees]

Yes, let's go back 30 years again.

I'm not sure how this is a relevant comment, given that the type of warfare was the same.

No, your turn, show me how a tank is indispensable.

Um, you were the one that made the claim. You should support your position.

[The Macabees]

Is this guy a troll?

[Barringtonia]

You say they are inefficient, but they do an incredible job.Soldiers don't care if the stryker can do a few things better. A tank has always had the soldiers hearts. The tank is this monster of the battlefield and the soldiers feel that way. They feel a lot safer with a tank than with a stryker.

TONY CAPACCIO: “Colonel, do you have any specific tactical instances where in the city Mosul these vehicles accomplished more than a tank could of or a Bradley could have, given their construction and their mobility?”

COL. BROWN: “How much time do you have?

Eh?

[Barringtonia]

Is this guy a troll?

Usual claim when unable to support your position.

[The Macabees]

Usual claim when unable to support your position.

[Barringtonia]

Usual claim when unable to support your position.

Please demonstrate where a tank is indispensable given the alternatives.

[Lizardiar]

If the stryker is so much better than a tank, why do soldiers feel safer when behind a tank? Why do they have more faith in the tank's gun than the strykers?

[Barringtonia]

If the stryker is so much better than a tank, why do soldiers feel safer when behind a tank? Why do they have more faith in the tank's gun than the strykers?

Do they, please give examples after 2007.

[The Macabees]

Please demonstrate where a tank is indispensable given the alternatives.

I. Already. Have. All you've done is set up straw men and ignore my comments when you are unable to provide a rebuttal.

I guess I should just stop arguing. Obviously, you are not interested in reading anything factual. Just interested in making untenable positions and then making a red herring when someone asks you to back your opinions up with facts.

[Conserative Morality]

You say they are inefficient, but they do an incredible job.Soldiers don't care if the stryker can do a few things better. A tank has always had the soldiers hearts. The tank is this monster of the battlefield and the soldiers feel that way. They feel a lot safer with a tank than with a stryker.

TONY CAPACCIO: “Colonel, do you have any specific tactical instances where in the city Mosul these vehicles accomplished more than a tank could of or a Bradley could have, given their construction and their mobility?”

COL. BROWN: “How much time do you have?

Eh?

Honestly, it's the same link over and over again. The Stryker is lightly armored compared to many vehicles, and thus would serve as no threat even to say... A T-72. Is the Stryker going to replace many of the roles that the traditional Tank once served? Maybe. But Tanks will still be needed to counter light vehicles and other tanks, as well as being valuable when dealing with occupied cities and buildings.

[Barringtonia]

Please demonstrate where a tank is indispensable given the alternatives.

I. Already. Have. All you've done is set up straw men and ignore my comments when you are unable to provide a rebuttal.

I guess I should just stop arguing. Obviously, you are not interested in reading anything factual. Just interested in making untenable positions and then making a red herring when someone asks you to back your opinions up with facts.

What, counter-insurgency?

I've already rebutted that, anything else?

[Barringtonia]

Honestly, it's the same link over and over again. The Stryker is lightly armored compared to many vehicles, and thus would serve as no threat even to say... A T-72. Is the Stryker going to replace many of the roles that the traditional Tank once served? Maybe. But Tanks will still be needed to counter light vehicles and other tanks, as well as being valuable when dealing with occupied cities and buildings.

No casualties aside from one guy standing up in hit from above, the same issue with a tank, that's not even counting the numerous multiple target urban attack features of the Stryker, nor including the pointless, highly constrained turret, with limited vertical angle, of the tank.

Again, I await one benefit.

[Ninja and Spartans]

I have to go with the Abrams, it has had only 3 deaths in combat.

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

Honestly, it's the same link over and over again. The Stryker is lightly armored compared to many vehicles, and thus would serve as no threat even to say... A T-72. Is the Stryker going to replace many of the roles that the traditional Tank once served? Maybe. But Tanks will still be needed to counter light vehicles and other tanks, as well as being valuable when dealing with occupied cities and buildings.

No casualties aside from one guy standing up in hit from above, the same issue with a tank, that's not even counting the numerous multiple target urban attack features of the Stryker, nor including the pointless, highly constrained turret, with limited vertical angle, of the tank.

Again, I await one benefit.

Behold the tank escort vehicle. In urban areas, there is 2 for every tank.




Now you have the armor of a tank, with better weapons then an IFV.

[Barringtonia]

Now you have the armor of a tank, with better weapons then an IFV.

Sure, do we call that a tank?

I genuinely apologise for hijacking the thread in terms of what was the best tank, and to be fair the definition of what a tank is changes.

Tanks arise from cavalry, armoured units designed for open warfare, large land battles that essentially ended at El Alamein, carried through the Cold War but generally poorly designed for modern warfare.

One, if you don't have air superiority in this day and age, you're unlikely to send in ground troops, in recent wars, air superiority is established first and then it becomes a case of urban warfare. The aim is to hold key points of supply and counteract any ground insurgency.

In this case, tanks are both slow to move and slow to be moved, they have poor vertical attack ability and work as little more than mobile artillery, better served, once air superiority is in place, by helicopters and light infantry or one person with a GPS range finder and hi-altitude bombers than some cumbersome, easily targeted hunk of metal.

Once you're in zones of urban combat, you want speed, communication and protection, all equally provided if not surpassed by Strykers as opposed to slow, 4-man tanks.

[Lizardiar]

Why do you hate tanks? They have protected soldiers. It is called combined arms It means that the tanks take out large targets that the bombers can't get, while the soldier moves in close quarters. The bombers take out huge buildings or holdouts.

None can work to their full potential without the other.

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

call tanks slow if you must, but in urban combat, especially if one or both sides has used artillery, speed doesn't mean anything if the roads are torn up. Tanks at least can roll over most obstacles to get where they need to be.

[Conserative Morality]

Honestly, it's the same link over and over again. The Stryker is lightly armored compared to many vehicles, and thus would serve as no threat even to say... A T-72. Is the Stryker going to replace many of the roles that the traditional Tank once served? Maybe. But Tanks will still be needed to counter light vehicles and other tanks, as well as being valuable when dealing with occupied cities and buildings.

No casualties aside from one guy standing up in hit from above, the same issue with a tank, that's not even counting the numerous multiple target urban attack features of the Stryker, nor including the pointless, highly constrained turret, with limited vertical angle, of the tank.

Again, I await one benefit.

You... Didn't answer a single point posted in my original post. Any chance you could try re-reading the post and answering the scenario/question put out instead of posting more statistics that have no relevance to the post at hand?

[Fson]

saw what the centurion did in the various wars israel fought with their neighbouring states.