Are tanks worth it?

[Hurdergaryp]

All the while screaming RULE BRITTANIA BITCH!

RULE RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE BATHTUB!

[citation needed intensifying]

[Genivaria]

I have a dream of marines going into combat wearing hard-suits and helmets that automatically translate anything that is heard.
Don't ruin this for me!

When you said 'powered exoskeleton' I heard 'powered armor' not 'helmet HUD & high-tech knight's armor'

Well it's a flexible term, though people calling it an 'Iron-Man suit' just make me want to slap someone since the concept has been around for decades.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yeah pretty much
Although if it’s T-45 I’ll fucking re-enlist

You smell that? Steel, grease, oil, and plasma. *sniiiifff* Smells like America.

Ad Victoriam Brother

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKfpPrRVIo

[Engleberg]

You smell that? Steel, grease, oil, and plasma. *sniiiifff* Smells like America.

Ad Victoriam Brother

Now, don't be fooled by their pseudo-knightly nonsense or supposed connections to the United States Army. These... power-armored boy scouts are nothing more than common criminals with access to some antiquated technology. Criminals who have had the audacity to claim this country's most important military installation, the Pentagon, as their own personal clubhouse!

[Fartsniffage]

RULE RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE BATHTUB!

points and giggles at the QE class carriers

65k tonnes with no CATOBAR capability. What even is the Royal Navy.

Keeps the riff raff out of the RNAS. Anyone can land a plane with 3 wires to help them, landing one vertically takes skill.

[Genivaria]

Ad Victoriam Brother

Now, don't be fooled by their pseudo-knightly nonsense or supposed connections to the United States Army. These... power-armored boy scouts are nothing more than common criminals with access to some antiquated technology. Criminals who have had the audacity to claim this country's most important military installation, the Pentagon, as their own personal clubhouse!

God Bless the Enclave.
God Bless America.

[The Confederacy of Dominion States]

A tank is, and still is, a cornerstone of modern battlefields and likely future ones as well. The biggest strengths of a tank is the capability to have artillery anywhere you need it, it is self propelled, and protected from enemy attacks.

Tanks have been a staple of warfare since their introduction. Even the derpy and slow tanks of WW1 were faster than the infantry because they were not bogged down by ditches, barbed wire, and enemy fire, of which gave them incredible usefulness when spearheading attacks. During WW2 tanks radically changed the face of war with the Blitzkrieg, a tactic previously impossible without the use of tanks. Vehicles like the Panzer 4 could hit 30kmh and their all terrain tracks let them get to places otherwise inaccessible by wheeled vehicles. Their guns allowed them to punch other tanks and entrenched positions, and machine guns suppressed infantry or cut down those that tried to overwhelm the tank. Their armor let them go into exposed areas without fear of damage and let them knock out positions otherwise unapproachable by infantry. Tanks are in essence the real life equivalent of an ubercharge, they can push further than a tankless force ever could and apply force at ranges of kilometers away.

Of course there are downsides to a tank, nothing is without them, but they do not present arguments strong enough to make tanks nonviable.

"Tanks are slow"
Not since 1940. And even then, like stated above, they can still move at a pace faster than infantry.

"Tanks can be destroyed easily by flanking"
So can any AFV, soldier, plane, artillery piece, battleship (RIP), etc

"Tanks are easy to destroy from the air"
But what if you don't have aerial dominance? Planes are very fragile and risk destruction from a massive list of causes, and they are many times more expensive than a tank. Ground based anti aircraft weapons are more likely to kill a plane than the other way around, but a tank and an anti tank gun are equally vulnerable to each other. Aircraft can be hard countered, tanks only soft countered.

"Close Air Support (CAS) can do the damage a tank can"
Same problem as above, and a plane cannot do sustained damage on a target like a tank can. Bombs are heavy. A plane can only take a few at a time, and in doing so they become harder to fly and more vulnerable to enemy attack. A tank can carry dozens of rounds and deliver many, far more accurate shots than a plane.

"ATGMS from lighter vehicles can kill a tank"
Which is where the magic of composite armor comes in! Composite armor is much thinner and lighter than steel armor and have far more protective qualities. A small piece of composite armor can have the equivalent resistance to HEAT (weapon used on ATGMS) warheads as 800mm of steel(!). And a tank can far more easily kill the AFV that launched it.

"Tanks are expensive to maintain"
Have you seen what it takes to keep a plane just in minimum working order? And planes have shorter lifespans in a military. Sherman tanks are still used today, whereas the P-47 fighter plane retired in 1966. And a Sherman tank can still potentially kill an MBT (good luck with that though, gonna need a hell of a side shot!)

"Artillery can carry big guns too"
But a tank is able to bring its gun up with the ever changing frontline, artillery needs a set up location and is far more vulnerable to attack.

"AFVs are just as fast, cheaper, and carry smaller but faster firing guns"
But a small fast firing gun is still a small gun. Armor does not have an HP bar, you can't whittle heavy armor down by firing small rounds into it. And a small gun is limited in effectiveness, a big gun can solve any problem even if it isn't nearly as fast. AFVs also have much lighter armor. You also can't replace purpose built tanks by having a heavily armored AFV fill its spot, because that just makes the AFV into a tank except its more awkward and less useful.

"Death traps, Ronsons, the T-34 series"
Statistically, while those are still horrible ways to die, tank crewmen and women have far higher survival rates than infantry.

"Tanks are big targets"
So what are you going to do about it? You can see it, but how do you kill it? You can see Godzilla from miles away, but that doesn't make him any easier to kill because his protection limits your options down to needing "King Kong" to fight him. And even then "King Kong" may not win, and you'll still have a tank problem. Plus you don't have King Kong anymore.

"Missiles"
Imagine a plane, but slower reacting, less accurate, and less consistent. Long range missiles have a hard time with small moving targets, regardless of their ability to correct their course.

"Anti tank technology is improving, tanks will be doomed to die soon"
The term tank will die, but the concept of a heavily armored and armed weapon system will never be replaced. Tanks will live on, just not in name, the same way cruisers have officially died but Zumwalt destroyers are cruisers in every sense but the name.

"Tanks require complex logistics to keep them functioning"
Shells, fuel, and spare parts are much the same in weight as the large amounts of food, gear, and facilities needed for soldiers.

"Tanks are not as flexible as infantry"
Tanks are not restricted to being heavy, big gun vehicles. The Chaffee, Panzer III, Leopard series, and Challenger series are examples of the versatility of tanks.

"Tank tracks can be destroyed"
It still has its guns and armor though. Its not moving, but it can still rek you.

"Tanks will sink in mud because they're heavy"
Tanks with wide tracks actually have great ground flotation. The weight is distributed across a large area which makes them have far less ground pressure than they appear. In WW2, Tiger crews were advised to test ground softness by having a man be piggybacked by another man. If the piggybacked man did not sink into the ground, the Tiger could go there as well!

[Oil exporting People]

Damn Rumsfeld and his doctrine is mostly to blame for this thinking.

[Ethel mermania]

As long as I can have one for rush hour on the long island expressway, we are good.

[Prussian Polish Commonwealth]

Yes, end of story, besides they look better than APCs or...***shudder*** mechs

[Hurdergaryp]

Yes, end of story, besides they look better than APCs or...***shudder*** mechs

Looks aren't everything, even though you've got a point.

[Galaxy Land]

Tanks are useless! So as guns and other weapons! To win a war, simply declare peace or just say that the other country wins automatically.

[Uxupox]

[quote="The Confederacy of Dominion States";p="34189516"]A tank is, and still is, a cornerstone of modern battlefields and likely future ones as well. The biggest strengths of a tank is the capability to have artillery anywhere you need it, it is self propelled, and protected from enemy attacks.

Tanks have been a staple of warfare since their introduction. Even the derpy and slow tanks of WW1 were faster than the infantry because they were not bogged down by ditches, barbed wire, and enemy fire, of which gave them incredible usefulness when spearheading attacks. During WW2 tanks radically changed the face of war with the Blitzkrieg, a tactic previously impossible without the use of tanks. Vehicles like the Panzer 4 could hit 30kmh and their all terrain tracks let them get to places otherwise inaccessible by wheeled vehicles. Their guns allowed them to punch other tanks and entrenched positions, and machine guns suppressed infantry or cut down those that tried to overwhelm the tank. Their armor let them go into exposed areas without fear of damage and let them knock out positions otherwise unapproachable by infantry. Tanks are in essence the real life equivalent of an ubercharge, they can push further than a tankless force ever could and apply force at ranges of kilometers away.

Of course there are downsides to a tank, nothing is without them, but they do not present arguments strong enough to make tanks nonviable.

"Tanks are slow"
Not since 1940. And even then, like stated above, they can still move at a pace faster than infantry.

"Tanks can be destroyed easily by flanking"
So can any AFV, soldier, plane, artillery piece, battleship (RIP), etc

"Tanks are easy to destroy from the air"
But what if you don't have aerial dominance? Planes are very fragile and risk destruction from a massive list of causes, and they are many times more expensive than a tank. Ground based anti aircraft weapons are more likely to kill a plane than the other way around, but a tank and an anti tank gun are equally vulnerable to each other. Aircraft can be hard countered, tanks only soft countered.

"Close Air Support (CAS) can do the damage a tank can"
Same problem as above, and a plane cannot do sustained damage on a target like a tank can. Bombs are heavy. A plane can only take a few at a time, and in doing so they become harder to fly and more vulnerable to enemy attack. A tank can carry dozens of rounds and deliver many, far more accurate shots than a plane.

"ATGMS from lighter vehicles can kill a tank"
Which is where the magic of composite armor comes in! Composite armor is much thinner and lighter than steel armor and have far more protective qualities. A small piece of composite armor can have the equivalent resistance to HEAT (weapon used on ATGMS) warheads as 800mm of steel(!). And a tank can far more easily kill the AFV that launched it.

"Tanks are expensive to maintain"
Have you seen what it takes to keep a plane just in minimum working order? And planes have shorter lifespans in a military. Sherman tanks are still used today, whereas the P-47 fighter plane retired in 1966. And a Sherman tank can still potentially kill an MBT (good luck with that though, gonna need a hell of a side shot!)

"Artillery can carry big guns too"
But a tank is able to bring its gun up with the ever changing frontline, artillery needs a set up location and is far more vulnerable to attack.

"AFVs are just as fast, cheaper, and carry smaller but faster firing guns"
But a small fast firing gun is still a small gun. Armor does not have an HP bar, you can't whittle heavy armor down by firing small rounds into it. And a small gun is limited in effectiveness, a big gun can solve any problem even if it isn't nearly as fast. AFVs also have much lighter armor. You also can't replace purpose built tanks by having a heavily armored AFV fill its spot, because that just makes the AFV into a tank except its more awkward and less useful.

"Death traps, Ronsons, the T-34 series"
Statistically, while those are still horrible ways to die, tank crewmen and women have far higher survival rates than infantry.

"Tanks are big targets"
So what are you going to do about it? You can see it, but how do you kill it? You can see Godzilla from miles away, but that doesn't make him any easier to kill because his protection limits your options down to needing "King Kong" to fight him. And even then "King Kong" may not win, and you'll still have a tank problem. Plus you don't have King Kong anymore.

"Missiles"
Imagine a plane, but slower reacting, less accurate, and less consistent. Long range missiles have a hard time with small moving targets, regardless of their ability to correct their course.

"Anti tank technology is improving, tanks will be doomed to die soon"
The term tank will die, but the concept of a heavily armored and armed weapon system will never be replaced. Tanks will live on, just not in name, the same way cruisers have officially died but Zumwalt destroyers are cruisers in every sense but the name.

"Tanks require complex logistics to keep them functioning"
Shells, fuel, and spare parts are much the same in weight as the large amounts of food, gear, and facilities needed for soldiers.

"Tanks are not as flexible as infantry"
Tanks are not restricted to being heavy, big gun vehicles. The Chaffee, Panzer III, Leopard series, and Challenger series are examples of the versatility of tanks.

"Tank tracks can be destroyed"
It still has its guns and armor though. Its not moving, but it can still rek you.

"Tanks will sink in mud because they're heavy"
Tanks with wide tracks actually have great ground flotation. The weight is distributed across a large area which makes them have far less ground pressure than they appear. In WW2, Tiger crews were advised to test ground softness by having a man be piggybacked by another man. If the piggybacked man did not sink into the ground, the Tiger could go there as well![/

As a loggie I cried every time a rank went down in exercises.

[Saiwania]

Tanks are definitely worth every penny. Russia built a new tank relatively recently, so we have to come out with our own new tank or otherwise keep that industry alive. If we're really ambitious, we could try moving up to a 160 mm gun.

[Huntpublic]

I think tanks have a little more time before being put out of use. Tanks and infantrymen support each other, so as long as we have soldiers I think we still would have tanks, or at least until they are replaced by the remote-controlled "tanks"(I it in quotations because I know that the Russians have that one Uran-9 tank, but it really doesn't look like what most would consider a tank. At least I don't think it looks a lot like a regular tank)

[Uxupox]

Damn Rumsfeld and his doctrine is mostly to blame for this thinking.

Rumsfeld RMA is not exactly wrong. It is erroneous at some people’s bits but it does have good clarification on the changing battlefield.

[Hurdergaryp]

Tanks are definitely worth every penny. Russia built a new tank relatively recently, so we have to come out with our own new tank or otherwise keep that industry alive. If we're really ambitious, we could try moving up to a 160 mm gun.

The Leopard 2 can be re-equipped with a 140mm gun, which is a pretty huge caliber already. 160mm is a bit over the top.

[Uxupox]

Tanks are definitely worth every penny. Russia built a new tank relatively recently, so we have to come out with our own new tank or otherwise keep that industry alive. If we're really ambitious, we could try moving up to a 160 mm gun.

The Leopard 2 can be re-equipped with a 140mm gun, which is a pretty huge caliber already. 160mm is a bit over the top.

We can always go bigger.

[Fartsniffage]

Tanks are definitely worth every penny. Russia built a new tank relatively recently, so we have to come out with our own new tank or otherwise keep that industry alive. If we're really ambitious, we could try moving up to a 160 mm gun.

The Leopard 2 can be re-equipped with a 140mm gun, which is a pretty huge caliber already. 160mm is a bit over the top.

It won't be bigger guns, it'll be better projectiles.

[The Transhuman Union]

No, no, we should only use tanks and just zerg the enemy.

[Pax Nerdvana]

The Leopard 2 can be re-equipped with a 140mm gun, which is a pretty huge caliber already. 160mm is a bit over the top.

It won't be bigger guns, it'll be better projectiles.

Rail guns?

[Risottia]

Back to the topic, the Bradley is the only light AFV that could pull up against a tank that i can think of.

Centauro/120 (wheeled), Sprut SD (tracked, airdroppable)...

[Risottia]

It won't be bigger guns, it'll be better projectiles.

Rail guns?

Guided projectiles are better, and already available.

[Uxupox]

Back to the topic, the Bradley is the only light AFV that could pull up against a tank that i can think of.

Centauro/120 (wheeled), Sprut SD (tracked, airdroppable)...

“Airdroppable” absolute ineficiente.