Sorry for the uneducated questions, but does tanks still have

>Take direct accurate small arms fire without dying
>Be a moving wall
>Be a mobile pillbox
>Destroy pretty much anything
>Demolish barriers

>there is now numerous individual weapons that can be used by a single soldier to stop a tank.
These are much harder to use when your target knows what hes doing.

tanks (and infantry) are used for capturing and holding ground.

numerous individual anti-tank weapons can be countered by numerous countermeasures such as soft-kill/hard-kill active protection systems, reactive armor and electronically scanned array radars being installed on more recent mbt's

while world hasn't seen engagements between large mechanized formations for quite some time, it doesn't mean they won't occur in the future

with the arrival of remote controlled modules and advanced robotics tanks will remain relevant on the battlefield for decades and decades to come

Tanks are obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets

>>30968201
You know tanks wont operate solo. There would be anti-AA, infantry and so on.

>>30968201
>What is SPAAGs
>What is air superiority

>>30968127
>I mean, there is now numerous individual weapons that can be used by a single soldier to stop a tank.

Those weapon systems has existed since WW2

File: image.png (19KB, 321x207px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 321x207px

Sorry for the uneducated questions, but does infantry still have a point?

I mean, there is now numerous individual weapons that can be used by a vehicle to stop a infantry.

All in all I have the feeling that infantry are only useful to die making it all moot.

Where are infantry still being effectively used. what job do they do that vehicles couldn't do better for less deaths?

>>30968323
I know you're just being ironic, but infantry are still the most maneuverable combat arm of any fighting force and the ones best suited for holding territory. They're called the Queen of the Battlefield because they can go anywhere the enemy does.

[spoiler]Of course, artillery is called the King of the Battlefield, and we know what the king does to the queen.[/spoiler]

>>30968158
>These are much harder to use when your target knows what hes doing.

This so much, the vids you might see of tanks getting busted are mostly sand niggers in stolen old soviet tanks.

>>30968290
The germans put armored skirts on the tank but how effective were those at reducing damage from handheld AT

Also not every soldier is equipped to fight a tank. So when tank rocks up and all you have is a rifle good luck.

>>30968323
>I mean, there is now numerous individual weapons that can be used by a vehicle to stop a infantry.
why would a vehicle use individual weapons?

>>30968391
Well, in our army at least one guy in a section carries a LAW tube, but that won't cut the mustard against a modern MBT (it's mainly there to kill armored cars and the like). You'd need multiple dedicated AT sections flanking a tank to take it out.

File: 0.jpg (16KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x270px

Also, Tires or Tracks?

More and more Tanks are being put on wheels. Are Tracks getting outdated?

>>30968407
No

File: 0.jpg (338KB, 1600x884px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1600x884px

More importantly, what the fuck is the point of this?

File: abrams24201qv5.jpg (81KB, 850x443px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 850x443px

>>30968290
Yeah and it would take a couple lucky hits to take down even a sherman. Now they are guided and have 20 times the range can penetrate a couple feet of steel and come in from the top. Not to mention helicopters and aircraft that can easily destroy tanks. Even IEDs or rpgs can do damage for practically no cost. This is why mbt are not frequently used. I think the last time was in iraq and they had some pretty significant loses. this is why every major power has been trying in vain to uparmor their tanks into something that can survive modern warefare. It is a pointless and expensive task.

>>30968430
Because mud is muddy

>>30968430
it grads ketten

>>30968430
like all other halftracks it combines wheeled control with tracks their offroad mobility

>>30968396
Carries a law?
If US what God damn fucking unit are you in

>>30968438
>I think the last time was in iraq and they had some pretty significant loses.

What constitutes "pretty significant losses" to you? I hope you realize that during the entirety of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation that not a single American crewing an Abrams died to enemy tanks, IEDs, or ATGMs. There were obviously some tanks that were mobility killed, but that only makes a lasting impact if the tank can't be repaired or recovered afterwards, which most of them were.

>>30968407
>More and more Tanks are being put on wheels.
Show me one MBT on wheels please.

>>30968127

Sorry for the uneducated questions, but does infantry still have a point?

I mean, there is now numerous individual weapons that can be used by a single soldier to stop infantry.

All in all I have the feeling that infantry are only useful to fight other infantry making it all moot.

Where are infantry still being effectively used. what job do they do that planes couldn't do better for less casualties?

>>30968201
Be cheaper.

>>30968547
Search places and people, distinguish between hardened terrorist and schoolchildren that will someday become hardened terrorist

>>30968619

No, that's all bullshit. Planes can do that better.

File: getfucked.jpg (10KB, 464x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 464x184px

>>30968201
The M830A1 HEAT-MP round the Abrams is equipped with is capable of engaging helicopters.

Tanks are a part of combined arms, no competent military send in tanks with no support.

>>30968127
I was always thinking that we should go back to calvary. They're fast, they're cheap, they can go anywhere in a city without destroying the buildings, you can give the rider any gun including an RPG, and a calvary charge can be useful even in the modern age. Overall, calvary should be used instead of tanks.

OP is right

The UK Armed forces have already said that the Challenger 2 is the final generation of MBTs for them, and won't be upgraded when they are retired.

>>30968639
>they can go anywhere in a city without destroying the buildings

in what sense is this an advantage?

>>30968127
I think tanks are and probably will remain a staple of land-military doctrine and power. That being said, the next conventional war will likely bring changes to warfare, tactics, and equipment that we simply cannot forsee. This has been the case with most large scale conventional wars. In truth, war really does change in every aspect except for the killing.

>>30968639
Ask the Polish and Chinese how well that works against mechanized infantry and armor.

>can go anywhere in a city without destroying the buildings
Who cares?
It's not like they are used to hunt down armed robbers in my back yard.
Collateral damage doesn't mean a shit when all the fighting is done in third world shitholes no one cares about.

>>30968547
see >>30968323

>>30968631
>no competent military send in tanks with no support.
I thought tanks WERE the support.

File: 3840.jpg (71KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 620x372px

>>30968639

here's some of the prime cavalry terrain where you want to be really careful about collateral damage that you're talking about

yes, I can definitely see how horses would fit into the tactical situation here

>>30968640
>MBT
MBT stands for Mobile Battle Tanks, right?

>>30968710

How dumb are you? Tanks can't shoot down planes. Tanks are supported by other things that can shoot down planes.

>>30968711
People perched on horses make for easier target, thus reducing the risk of civilian getting accidentally shot in the crossfires. I say that does the job at avoiding collateral.

>>30968717
>Tanks can't shoot down planes
Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLq0ni8FQGI

>>30968716
Is this a funny joke?

File: 1434919920180.jpg (94KB, 567x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 567x800px

>>30968735
>>>/v/

I guess tanks can shoot down jets.
If by tank you mean SPAAG.

File: 0.jpg (48KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x375px

>>30968735
And Bastion in Tank mode can even rocket jump.

>>30968127
>All in all I have the feeling that tanks are only useful to fight other tanks making it all moot.

completely backwards, OP.

Anti-tank weapons are better at killing tanks than tanks are, about 2.5x better to be exact.

Tanks were never meant for killing other tanks. They are meant to be armored boxes that break through weak points and run wild behind enemy lines, which is something infantry can't do because infantry is fragile and slow and doesn't carry lots of ammo.

Killing other tanks in the process isn't their purpose, it's just a side effect they have to be prepared for.

>>30968762
This was more true in WW1 and WW2.
Standard ammo load of a T-34 was mainly HE and shrapnel shells, with ~10 AP rounds thrown in just in case.

A modern MBT on the other hand is more designed for hunting and killing enemy tanks and other vehicles.

>>30968741
no

>>30968640
Because the british have such a great track record at predicting the next war right?

>>30968201
>Artillery is obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets
>Infantry is obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets
>Special Forces are obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets
>K9 military units are obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets

>>30969873
>>Infantry is obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets
Against helicopters, there is always RPG.

Jets still require artillery, though.

>>30969873
>>K9 military units are obsolete in the modern age honestly. Like what the fuck can they do against attack helicopters and jets
they can hump their leg up till death.

So, what does MBT stand for?

>>30968127
I took part in an exercise and suddenly my entire squads MILES gear started bleeping, turns out a tank a mile away in cover had nailed us all before we saw it.

>>30968384
Common misconception. Schürzen were only ever intended to defeat common Soviet anti-tank rifle rounds by negating some of the kinetic energy before it connected with the actual vehicle armor. Any (limited) effectiveness against shaped charge projectiles was an entirely unintentional bonus.

>>30973047
were they effective at that job or not? Armored skirts look like a bandaid fix

>>30973153
Distancing armor works well against shaped charges, as long as the distance and armor thickness combined is more than the rounds penetration ability.

>>30972009
Main Battle Tank

A concept of combining the mobility of a medium tank with the firepower of a heavy tank, made possible by new materials and technology in the 1960s.

>>30968201
Tanks and jets can't hold ground.

>>30968639
Horses don't go very fast need to rest and make you more noticeable. Also prevent you from taking cover or aiming properly.

They may have a limited application for light infantry transport in difficult remote terrain away from proper infrastructure.

>>30968821
It's still true today. Hunting and killing tanks is done by strategic bombers with SFW first, strike fighters with LGBs second, Apaches third, and tanks last.

>>30968639
>calvary

>>30974473
Also easy to score a mobility kill on, because they're made of horse.

>>30974684
But great for bbq after a hard days fighting.

>>30968438

>pointless and expensive

Expensive, yes, but probably worth the cost if it means having tanks on the battlefield that are effectively invulnerable to guided missile attacks. So not at all pointless.

Is infantry obsolete in the modern age? I mean there are numerous small arms that can kill an infantryman, and what is air superiority?

>>30968127
>Where are tanks still being effectively used.
Ukraine, Syria, pretty much everywhere tanks are being used.

Look at Ukraine for example, there are massive quantities of every sort of anti-tank weapon, from anti-tank guns to ATGMs, and tanks remain the backbone of offensive action. The reason for this is fairly simple, while the enemy has some weapons of killing a tank that number is far lower then his number of weapons capable of killing an infantryman so while tanks - and their crews - are lost the causalities are lower then if they had not been in tanks. Combine that with the usefulness of a big gun and the mobility of a tracked platform and it becomes obvious why the tank remains an effective platform.

Syria gives examples of incredibly obsolete designs still being useful. ATGMs are relativity rare and valuable, only a couple hundred being used a month in the entire country. It should be noted that after years of relentless attrition the Syrian Arab Army still fields (relatively) well equipped armored formations, while most of the infantry units have devolved into militias.

>>30968384
They were designed to stop 14.5 AT rifle bullets and 76.2mm HE rounds. Soviets test of tanks with stand of screen shown that they can't stop Panzerfaust 100, in one test it went right throw both sides of T-IV turret with schurzens.

>>30968201
>what is combined arms

>>30973655
Thanks.

>>30968482
Didn't you hear? They started re-issuing those again since they're light, small, cheap and easy to handle. They're useful fuckers.

File: boston dynamics big dog.jpg (67KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x384px

>>30968639

Cavalry could be useful as dragoons and rarely as actual horse-mounted fighters, but we threw all the infrastructure to make them away when WW2 ended, and are close to making robot horses anyway.

For what it's worth, China still uses them.

>>30979700
I heard they were useful in urban situations when you need to bust a wall or whatever

File: hits taken.jpg (54KB, 286x405px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 286x405px

>>30968127
>there is now numerous individual weapons that can be used by a single soldier to stop a tank.

>The millimeter band radar system mounted on the turret is capable of operating as a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS). The vehicle's computer in turn can triangulate incoming projectiles, immediately warn the vehicle crew and fire off Visual and Infrared Screening Smoke (VIRSS) grenades, which can effectively block optical, infrared and radar signatures.

>The K2 also has a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and radar jammer. Four all-bearing Laser warning receivers (LWR) are also present to alert the crew should the vehicle become "painted", and the computer can also deploy VIRSS grenades towards the direction of the beam.

yeah dude, a single soldier can totally stop a tank

File: RPG 7.jpg (877KB, 2472x1612px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 2472x1612px

>>30983112
>which can effectively block optical, infrared and radar signatures
Oh no, whatever shall we do?

>>30974395
Try to approach a tank that is crested on hill and see what happens.

>>30983151
because those worked so well for the iraqis when Abrams and Challengers were fucking them up, right

>>30968735
Truely a weapon to surpass metal gear.

>>30983151
Try next time with something that can actually penetrate its armor.

File: miia confused.gif (2MB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x810px

>>30983151
>tank can defeat modern ATGMs
>let's use outdated cold war shit against them!
do you have brain damage?

>>30968512
>I hope you realize that during the entirety of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation that not a single American crewing an Abrams died to enemy tanks, IEDs, or ATGMs
This is completely false.

>>30968821
>A modern MBT on the other hand is more designed for hunting and killing enemy tanks and other vehicles.
Incorrect. It is designed to engage and destroy all manner of targets on the ground via maneuver and direct fire.

File: 1469651640865.jpg (12KB, 262x312px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 262x312px

>>30968460
Underrated

U dont even need a $399k TOW, ALLYOU need is 5 gallons of diesel and the huevos to dump it on top of the tank. Yeah, you armchair commandoes KNEW THAT 24 dollas a diesel will take out the mythical 34 million dolla abrams riiiiiight?.

my dad was a spook in afghanistan (wgen the russians had it) he watched as a tracked t72 stalemate progressed. immobilized, the mooj-kebabs he was training sent a boy back to wadi village to secure 20 liters of diesel. kebabs being out of heat rounds for their rpg, they just distracted occupants with small arms, sent 12 year boy from back to clamber aboard, dump diesel, they lit it and waited for occupants to emege, killed them, played soccer with their heads...

tanks, will last about as long as US CARRIERS IN THE NEXT DUSTUP... FIRST 24 hours is my best guess...

ya see dumasses, tanks have rubber seals, rubber makes nasty acrid poisonous black smoke when it BURNS. WHEN IF THE US fights someone that fights back, you will learn and remember wisdom of based anon, tanks are archaic and useless especially in gloves off asym warfare...

case in point; hexbollah vs heebs

tanks overrated

>>30968362

Third. In every video you see from Syria where a tank dies the crew did something stupid.

>>30968762

Which of course is why the british are now realizing that their rifled barrels for HESH flinging were the best choice all along!

Ow wait...

File: this kills the abrams.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>30968362
The way the Iraqis(and Saudis) use their Abrams is a perfect example of how NOT to tank. Those retards would send 1 or 2 tanks out alone with no infantry and just sit somewhere until they got attacked, in which they either got rekt or abandoned their shit and ran.

>>30983112

Can a modern MBT tell where a missile is shot from? I always have the impression most ATGMs are so slow the tank can respond with its main gun before the ATGM even hits. The videos I have see so far tend to show more than 6-7 seconds between fire and impact, which should be enough for a good MBT to reload and engage. Will be hard though.

>>30983726

Wait, he didn't need to abandon that right?

>>30983741

With modern APS/ADS systems, yes, against some missiles.
but that's a fairly new thing.

>>30983758
I mean he wasn't roasted so yeah, but I wouldn't want to stay in a tank that's cooking off. For the running part I was referring to the instances where Iraqi crews ditched their tanks at the first sign of resistance. There plenty of photos and video of ISIS with untouched Abrams tanks that were abandoned.

>>30983783

Yeh but this thing seems to be cooking off the bustle ammo. That should be isolated from the fighting compartment. If that fire didn't roast you inmediately staying seems tons safer to me.

>>30968716
It stands for Main Battle Tank

>>30983151
Firing an RPG at a modern MBT is like throwing a pebble at a grizzly. All you're doing is pissing it off.

>>30983758
Yes, when your ammunition starts exploding it's a good time not to be near it

Blow off panels are a safety feature, not a guarantee

>>30983991
>what is PG-7VR