I'll keep saying it. Tanks are obsolete.
>>61567665>but anon that's bait!Nineteen forty three and they already knew. Firepower beats armor, sorry tankers but you'll never be real cavalry!
I’ll keep saying it. I just don’t care.
>>61567673>-t. the coping American tankmen of the “Old Ironsides” Armored Division after the wrecked hulks of brand-new General Shermans and General Grants lined the roads
Have you invented something that can do a tank's job better yet?No? Then they aren't obsolete.
>>61567665tanks are bad at many things. they should never go without infantry support, and they're infamously dogshit at urban operations. they're also good at many things. don't start talking about how bad helicopters are just because they can't go on bombing runs.
>>61567690That’s a lot of words I’m not reading
FPV pilot hereThe age of man on the battlefield is over
>>61568339The battlefield is simply expanding and becoming less dense. Permanent recon and strike capabilities demand so.
>>61567665You'll keep saying it and you'll keep being wrong.
>>61568349The entire world is the battlefieldWe are genuinely a few years away from slaughterbots
>>61567665I'll keep saying it. Op is a fat fucking faggot.
That's like saying that crabs are obsolete even though they've independently evolved several times. There are lots of things that prey on crabs but that doesn't make them extinct
I'll keep saying it. Tanks are not obsolete.
>>61567665>Bad tanks are obsolete Always has been. Civil War in Spain clearly demonstrated that tank need to tank AT hits (and everyone rushed to up armor their tanks against standard 25-37mm guns).
>>61567699What ARE MBTs good for today that cheaper, faster IFVs can't do? Fight other tanks? That's a tautology. Drones have essentially given every 3rd world tin pot nation a fully functional CAS air-arm. Like for battleships, aircraft is the deathblow for big huge lumbering MBTs. IFVs, which are the land equivalent of modern warships is replacing MBTs.
>>61569832>What ARE MBTs good for today that cheaper, faster IFVs can't do? Fight other tanks?bradley is not much faster than an MBTand if you armored up a bradley enough to take the place of an MBT, it wont be much cheaper>Fight other tanks?breakthrough role requires heavy firepower and armordeleting MBTs means IFVs will have to be drastically increased in size to accomodate the loss in firepower and protection>Like for battleships, aircraft is the deathblow for big huge lumbering MBTsMBTs are highly agilethe M1 abrams replaced the humvee in cav troops because it had better off-road performance>IFVs, which are the land equivalent of modern warships is replacing MBTs.IFVs are the destroyer to the MBTs carrieralternatively: the MBT/IFV combo is the equivalent of a destroyer task force, with the ABCT being the main maneuver element of the army, the armored divisions being the most concentrated weapon in their arsenalif we go by the battleship analogy, then the MBT is inarguably not comparablethe battleship pretty much fell out of use immediately after WW2whereas the MBT is still the backbone of the army today
>>61567665Said by increasingly nervous man for the 7th time today. If tanks are obsolete why is every country including Russia expanding tank acquisition and development? Why are regional powers like Iran, Turkey, India, Israel, China, North Korea, Japan, etc. all concerned with domestic MBT development? If the end of tankery is so obviously a consequence of drone warfare, which began long before Ukraine btw, then why is there not even a single upstart power betting big on drone integrated IFVs or whatever as a replacement for the tank? No matter their level of development, armies still want tanks in their combined arms teams. People that know better than you seem to disagree, so for anyone to take you seriously you're going to need to post credentials or shut the fuck up.
>>61567699>and they're infamously dogshit at urban operationsThere's no practical reason this should be the case. The tank is what the city wishes it would be: armored, mobile, and in a compact package. A tank has the leeway to chose when and where to engage the city and should have enough firepower to turn a skyscraper inside out from two miles away.
>>61570187>There's no practical reason this should be the casemech battalions are trained for urban combatthey use 2 mech infantry and 1 armor companies, compared to 2 armor and 1 mech for armor battalionsthe armor is still important, they just pack more infantry to take better advantage of the terrainthe tanks being used to control the roads and to hit point targets with their gun, while the infantry clear out buildingsa full urban operation would involve multiple armor and infantry brigades working in tandem
>>61569948t. Navy designers worldwide constructing battleships in 1936.Tanktards will cope that "PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE TANK WAS DEAD BEFORE AFTER WW2". But it very well may have been. Tanks have never really proved themself since, there hasn't been a real war where they were truly tested. The gulf war and iraq war were the closest but the coalitions had air superiority, were fighting demoralised and incompetent turdies in monkey model tanks
>>61570279>Navy designers worldwide constructing battleships in 1936.battleships were perfectly logical to build in 1936carriers werent good enough back then to actually achieve the dominance they did in the 40s
>firepower beats armorcorrect, and tanks has the most direct firepower of any ground vehicle
>>61570279Thanks for admitting to being a retard.
>>61569857>>61567665>MBTs>ArmorAll in the wrong spot in the world of omnidirectional smart munition strikes. Cope field mods is necessary to upgrade existing designs to a tolerable state. Clean sheet designs would have different armor configuration.> FirepowerHV sabot shooters are bad at non-sabot shooting, like 17Ib shermans and 57mm T-34s. All the propellent and huge ammo and no more effect then a bmp-3 100mm. 40mm airburst have more stored kills than 120mm HE that still kills one men per shot against dispersed opponents, nevermind AA power.>but what about enemy tanks, with APS?Strap a spike and top attack them, strap a CKEM and brute force it. Don't build a entire vehicle around very rare situations as long range fires kills vehicles, not close combat.Frankly SADRAM > Sabot, just make big payload guns and forget hypervelocity.
>>61568349>>61568339Fields are below the sky. The sky is the supreme domain of modern and future war, both in the sky and beyond it. The age of the battlefield is over. We're in the epoch of the battlespace™.
>>61570279>missing OP's point this hardTanks proved themselves a wild success directly after the aforementioned battle.
>>61567665CAS spam works extremely well in HOI4 and in real life.
>>61567690Who the fuck calls the Sherman and Grant tanks the General Sherman and General Grant? Everyone just called them the Sherman and Grant, including the people who designed and built the fucking things.
>>61573200>All in the wrong spot in the world of omnidirectional smart munition strikes.Main threat are ATGMs, handheld rockets, and large guns Clean sheet designs would have identical armor layout>All the propellent and huge ammo and no more effect then a bmp-3 100mm Stop talking out of your assThe 120mm MP exceeds and autocannon in effect on target >Strap a spike and top attack them, strap a CKEM and brute force it. Main gun is more desirable than missiles, because you can fire both HE and AP out the same tube
>>61569832>Drones have essentially given every 3rd world tin pot nationHaving just enough technology to fly cheap Aliexpress drones into tanks but not have the defenses against them is exactly the kind of situation that's gonna leave those tin pot nations a greater threat to themselves than other countries.If everyone has a $500 AT drone, anyone can fly them into the dictator's window at night.
