NATION

PASSWORD

Are tanks worth it?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Hurdergaryp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28044
Founded: Jul 10, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hurdergaryp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:05 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:
Genivaria wrote:All the while screaming RULE BRITTANIA BITCH!

RULE RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE BATHTUB!

[citation needed intensifying]

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61764
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:06 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:
Genivaria wrote: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' :lol:

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.
General Sherman did nothing wrong, fact.
Liberal Social Democrat.

User avatar
Internationalist Bastard
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23274
Founded: Aug 09, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Internationalist Bastard » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:07 pm

Genivaria wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote: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.
Image

Ad Victoriam Brother
Call me Alex, I insist
I am a girl, damnit
Slut Pride. So like, real talk, I’m a porn actress. We’re not all bimbos. I do not give out my information or videos to avoid conflict with site policy. I’m happy to talk about the industry or my thoughts on the career but I will not be showing you any goodies. Sorry
“Whatever you are, be a good one” Abe Lincoln

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29748
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:07 pm


User avatar
Engleberg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1190
Founded: Apr 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Engleberg » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:09 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Genivaria wrote:You smell that? Steel, grease, oil, and plasma. *sniiiifff* Smells like America.
Image

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!
Umbrellya wrote:"You are literally the most unashamed German I've ever met."

Wiena wrote:"Engleberg you surely are the most savage guy in the whole game."

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Anything Left of Center: *exists*
Engle: FUCKING REDS!

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29748
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:11 pm

North Arkana wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote: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.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61764
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:11 pm

Engleberg wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote: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.
General Sherman did nothing wrong, fact.
Liberal Social Democrat.

User avatar
The Confederacy of Dominion States
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jun 09, 2018
Ex-Nation

Tanks? VERY yes.

Postby The Confederacy of Dominion States » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:56 pm

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!

User avatar
Oil exporting People
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8281
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Oil exporting People » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:18 pm

Damn Rumsfeld and his doctrine is mostly to blame for this thinking.
National Syndicalist
“The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful.” - Julius Evola
Endorsing Greg "Grab 'em by the Neck" Gianforte and Brett "I Like Beer" Kavanaugh for 2020

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 92614
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:40 pm

As long as I can have one for rush hour on the long island expressway, we are good.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Prussian Polish Commonwealth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1212
Founded: Dec 30, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Prussian Polish Commonwealth » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:43 pm

Yes, end of story, besides they look better than APCs or...***shudder*** mechs
Current leader is Kaiser King Crassus von Hohenzollern
Das Gemeinwesen des Königreichs Preußen, das Königreich Polen und das Großherzogtum Litauen

Our three anthems
Main Theme
War theme
Peace theme
Victory theme
Defeat theme

Embassy Program
A Level 12 civilization, according to this index.

Time: January 2016
NEWS
Prussia-Poland exits EU////Sejm grants Kingdom of Bavaria shared autonomy in Danzig///Royal Bavarian Navy set to expand///German 'No Borders' activists hold rally near border crossing, breach fence before broken up with cavalry charge///5000 Christian refugees taken in

User avatar
Hurdergaryp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28044
Founded: Jul 10, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hurdergaryp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:47 pm

Prussian Polish Commonwealth wrote:Yes, end of story, besides they look better than APCs or...***shudder*** mechs

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

User avatar
Galaxy Land
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Mar 30, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galaxy Land » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:53 pm

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.
While our flag might have a bow, we are peacemakers and violence will have consequences.

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13113
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uxupox » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:54 pm

[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.
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14690
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:54 pm

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.

User avatar
Huntpublic
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Mar 21, 2018
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Huntpublic » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:55 pm

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)
HUNTPUBLIC TIMES: The Huntpublican Military has joined the NATO planned Trident Juncture 2018, it's Amphibious Assault Forces will be working closely with U.S. Marines in a simulated naval invasion of Norway, 
more photos and videos to come!

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13113
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uxupox » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:57 pm

Oil exporting People wrote: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.
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

User avatar
Hurdergaryp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28044
Founded: Jul 10, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hurdergaryp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:58 pm

Saiwania wrote: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.

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13113
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uxupox » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:59 pm

Hurdergaryp wrote:
Saiwania wrote: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.
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29748
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Hurdergaryp wrote:
Saiwania wrote: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.

User avatar
The Transhuman Union
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1161
Founded: Aug 21, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Transhuman Union » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:03 pm

No, no, we should only use tanks and just zerg the enemy.
A big, 1.8 M blob filled with joy and enthusiasm, with a small dash of ingenuity combined with a youthful, healthy dose of idealism.

User avatar
Pax Nerdvana
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10703
Founded: May 22, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Pax Nerdvana » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:03 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Hurdergaryp wrote: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?
Patriotic centrist American, who is vaguely right leaning. I support the Bill of Rights. I have no loyalty to any party. Expand or die. That's how humanity works. Science fiction is the best genre. The solar system is ours for the taking. I am a male. You can't spell team without "me". I support the troops.
Call me Pax. I take things literally, being a literal person.
Copy and paste this into your sig if you think we should colonize other planets.
#colonizemars
TANSTAAFL
( -_-) (-_Q) If you understand that both Capitalism and Socialism have ideas that deserve merit, put this in your signature.
Quotes
Pro:Bill of Rights,guns,centrism,capitalism,socialism,space exploration,Christianity
Anti: Trump,Clinton,Johnson,Green,fascism,Communism,big business

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51316
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:05 pm

-United Republic of Freedonia wrote: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)...
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51316
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:06 pm

Pax Nerdvana wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
It won't be bigger guns, it'll be better projectiles.

Rail guns?

Guided projectiles are better, and already available.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13113
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uxupox » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:07 pm

Risottia wrote:
-United Republic of Freedonia wrote: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.
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Allyrije, Azlaake, Cerinda, El-Amin Caliphate, Esternial, Fahran, Gallade, Ghost Land, Heloin, Hystaria, Immoren, Jestavera, Ostroeuropa, Shrillland, Terruana, The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp, The New California Republic, The South Falls, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Valrifell, Zrhajan, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads