Are tanks worth it?

[Isilanka]

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

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.

That being said I'm playing the armchair strategist here, so if someone with military experience wants to correct me, I'll gladly accept it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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!!

Because I’m an evil globalist spy remember?

[Internationalist Bastard]

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.

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

[Conserative Morality]

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.

[Hammer Britannia]

No, they are not.

We need to invest in those Tripods from Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds instead.

[Engleberg]

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

Right now the need for the tank is low, since these wars have been against combatants without modern equipment or organisation. In these wars, the IFV and other light armoured vehicles are perfect for transporting and supporting infantry. However when the enemy is Russia or China, with modern technology on par with the US/UK/France/Germany/etc., then you'll need that 500 mm of penetration. But until that happens, I do agree that a main battle tank should not be the focus in these "smaller" engagements.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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.

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

[Purpelia]

Ambush being the operative word, here.

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.

[The New California Republic]

Tank technology is constantly evolving. I think we will continue to see tanks into the foreseeable future, albeit in a very different form.

[Hurdergaryp]

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.

[Purpelia]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

[Hurdergaryp]

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.

That is the doctrine most modern armies subscribe to, yes.

[Fartsniffage]

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.

We do.

[Thermodolia]

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.

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

[Sahansahiye Iran]

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

[Conserative Morality]

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

Funny.

[Engleberg]

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

Nah, do it properly.

5 MT nuke'll take everyone out.

Nobody left, no fight.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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.

Yeah
Jokes aside Mobile Infantry is the main foundation of a modern army. I can see tanks being useful to guard the IFVs, armored cars etc against a similar force
On the scale of wars we’re fighting though, I’d stay a way

[Purpelia]

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

Even in cities, indeed especially in cities tanks are indefensible. Having something that can flat out drive through a wall, blast holes into buildings and demolish all in its path all the while providing cover against snipers and machineguns is incredibly useful. Which is why every single urban battle since tanks existed has featured them prominently.

I don't really get where this myth of tanks not working in cities comes from.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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

It keeps me through my day

[The Huskar Social Union]

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

Tanks are fucking awesome, how dare you IB, i used to like you, but now...

[North Arkana]

Is armored, protected, mobile firepower still worth it? Oh hell yes it is.

Where're my armored cav boys at?

[Hurdergaryp]

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.

A common statement about artillery is that it's the king of the battlefield. This is incorrect. It would be more correct to speak of artillery as the vengeful god of the battlefield, unleashing its wrath upon its hapless targets as if Ares himself was suffering from explosive diarrhea.