NationStates

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Isilanka wrote:I think we'll still need the heavies for quite some time.

In a way the debate around tanks is quite similar to the debate around manned jet fighters. Both are expensive to build and maintain and both have proved quite unnefective in asymetric conflicts. However, a weapon system is only viable or not in relative terms, depending on what you use it for and the doctrine of your army. For fighting another conventional army, you still need tanks. I don't think we have yet reached the point where weapons are so effective powerful and heavily armored vehicles aren't useful anymore.
I mean IFVs and stuff are very effective but they are heavily fragile, one shouldn't overestimate them. They're very useful but they can't be the be all and end all of the battlefield.

I haven’t seen a heavy tank in action but I know an rpg can take out every thing I have seen in action short of a plane

Thermodolia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Eh spit and duct tape it’ll be fine

Dip spit doesn’t count.

And how did you figure out my secret?!! This is a national crisis!!

Isilanka wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I haven’t seen a heavy tank in action but I know an rpg can take out every thing I have seen in action short of a plane

Depends. Tanks have been seen to shrug off rpg rounds in asymetric conflicts (see above about the Challenger 2). The problem is that rpgs still have a lower range than tanks (and in fact even anti-tank long-range missiles like Milan missiles). Not saying tanks are impervious to rpgs or even improvised weapon, without even talking of the nasty anti-tank stuff modern infantry can carry, but a heavy tank is still a hard nut to crack, especially if used correctly.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I suppose
Still I feel like a solid ambush with anti armor will take a tank down faster and easier then another tank
Maybe I’m just biased from experience

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Engleberg wrote:The technology of the tank has improved over the 100 years of its existence, and today our main battle tanks are the most advanced they have ever been. Rounds capable of penetrating 500+ mm of armour, composite armour made to withstand these rounds, technology that allows them to see in the dark, etc. As with every form of technology, they will continue to advance until they cannot advance any further and become obsolete. I do not see this happening within the next 30 years, but by 2050 who knows what'll exist.

But in today's world, tanks and other armoured vehicles are necessary. War will not go away anytime soon, and it's always good to have some depleted uranium between you and the enemy.

Thing is, you don’t need to penetrate 500mm of armor
Most combat is infantry or air, the actual need for a tank seems minimal, at least in the ears we’re fighting

Conserative Morality wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I suppose
Still I feel like a solid ambush with anti armor will take a tank down faster and easier then another tank
Maybe I’m just biased from experience

Ambush being the operative word, here.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Ambush being the operative word, here.

Easier then you think
Anyplace big enough to hide a team can ambush rather well, especially a vehicle

Conserative Morality wrote:Until infantry acquire weapons able to take out tanks from the same distance tanks can, tanks will be needed to eliminate other tanks and steamroll light vehicles.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Until infantry acquire weapons able to take out tanks from the same distance tanks can, tanks will be needed to eliminate other tanks and steamroll light vehicles.

Attack helicopters, which are pretty much flying tank destroyers, can perform that task as well. Concentrations of armored vehicles can be seriously crippled by continually repositioning mechanized artillery. There are several ways to neutralize the armored beast.

Hurdergaryp wrote:Attack helicopters, which are pretty much flying tank destroyers, can perform that task as well. Concentrations of armored vehicles can be seriously crippled by continually repositioning mechanized artillery. There are several ways to neutralize the armored beast.

Purpelia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Easier then you think
Anyplace big enough to hide a team can ambush rather well, especially a vehicle

Only if that vehicle is being used in a very retarded way. And I mean that literally not as another word for stupidity. It takes the tank being used as armies did before they figured out how tanks are supposed to work for that to happen.

Popper use of tanks will see them being escorted by other tanks and infantry that can spot ambushes, identify and clear any dangerous looking area and support by indirect fire when needed. And than it becomes really hard to ambush a tank even in a city.

Purpelia wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Attack helicopters, which are pretty much flying tank destroyers, can perform that task as well. Concentrations of armored vehicles can be seriously crippled by continually repositioning mechanized artillery. There are several ways to neutralize the armored beast.

Except that the people with tanks should have those as well. And it's better to have those and tanks than to have those without tanks.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Attack helicopters, which are pretty much flying tank destroyers, can perform that task as well. Concentrations of armored vehicles can be seriously crippled by continually repositioning mechanized artillery. There are several ways to neutralize the armored beast.

Attack helicopters are extremely vulnerable to both infantry and aircraft in a way tanks are not. And the power of artillery is often overstated, usually by artillerymen. The way they tell it they control the battlefield all on their lonesome.

Purpelia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Easier then you think
Anyplace big enough to hide a team can ambush rather well, especially a vehicle

Only if that vehicle is being used in a very retarded way. And I mean that literally not as another word for stupidity. It takes the tank being used as armies did before they figured out how tanks are supposed to work for that to happen.

Popper use of tanks will see them being escorted by other tanks and infantry that can spot ambushes, identify and clear any dangerous looking area and support by indirect fire when needed. And than it becomes really hard to ambush a tank even in a city.

Thermodolia wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Only if that vehicle is being used in a very retarded way. And I mean that literally not as another word for stupidity. It takes the tank being used as armies did before they figured out how tanks are supposed to work for that to happen.

Popper use of tanks will see them being escorted by other tanks and infantry that can spot ambushes, identify and clear any dangerous looking area and support by indirect fire when needed. And than it becomes really hard to ambush a tank even in a city.

Better yet level the city with thousands of tons of bombs. No city, no ambush

Thermodolia wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Only if that vehicle is being used in a very retarded way. And I mean that literally not as another word for stupidity. It takes the tank being used as armies did before they figured out how tanks are supposed to work for that to happen.

Popper use of tanks will see them being escorted by other tanks and infantry that can spot ambushes, identify and clear any dangerous looking area and support by indirect fire when needed. And than it becomes really hard to ambush a tank even in a city.

Better yet level the city with thousands of tons of bombs. No city, no ambush

Conserative Morality wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Attack helicopters, which are pretty much flying tank destroyers, can perform that task as well. Concentrations of armored vehicles can be seriously crippled by continually repositioning mechanized artillery. There are several ways to neutralize the armored beast.

Attack helicopters are extremely vulnerable to both infantry and aircraft in a way tanks are not. And the power of artillery is often overstated, usually by artillerymen. The way they tell it they control the battlefield all on their lonesome.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Only if that vehicle is being used in a very retarded way. And I mean that literally not as another word for stupidity. It takes the tank being used as armies did before they figured out how tanks are supposed to work for that to happen.

Popper use of tanks will see them being escorted by other tanks and infantry that can spot ambushes, identify and clear any dangerous looking area and support by indirect fire when needed. And than it becomes really hard to ambush a tank even in a city.

Without a good infantry screen that’s being very thorough, they’d be fucked. I’ll grant you that a disciplined army not fighting urban conflict can keep a tank alive

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:My favorite part of this thread is the dick measuring contest between the medic, the infantry, and the artillery on the first page.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:As former infantry I can give my pure unbiased opinion that tanks are dumb and people who drive them smell their own farts

Fartsniffage wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Attack helicopters are extremely vulnerable to both infantry and aircraft in a way tanks are not. And the power of artillery is often overstated, usually by artillerymen. The way they tell it they control the battlefield all on their lonesome.

We do.