Is air dropping tanks still worth it? https://www.youtube.c

>>32088594
the a team clip

The U.S. has so many bases around the world, no.

Air dropping tanks never been worth it. In fact it's debatable that paratroopers have

File: Tank_Drop_(Generals).jpg (36KB, 203x192px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 203x192px

>>32088594
China-tier tactics

At most, light utility vehicles makes sense, but with powerful man portable weapons like ATGMs , and precision strike aircraft, you can't justify the cost for the firepower.

Realistically, paratroopers have limited usefulness dropped by parachute. Helicopters and now tiltrotors have more or less replaced them in nearly every role. As far as I can tell, the USA only keeps them on a division scale due to their strategic mobility in response to an imminent threat.

May not be practical but it sure as hell looks cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TN68sp-vIw

>>32088594
I know that air dropping SUVs with radar masts and SUVs with MANPADs are not that bad but what about air dropping self propelled mortars?

Tanks aren't like paratroopers. Tanks need a supply line behind them. You shouldn't just "drop them in". They require tons of fuel and ammo will run out quick. It's a massive behemoth that won't survive behind enemy lines.

When armored brigades move, there are huge supply lines supporting the move. Look at the invasion of Iraq...the invasion had to slow down for the logistics to catch up.

>>32090791
It's possible to make lighter vehicles with larger fuel tanks that would be good for several days of movement/combat on their own
Abrams has a fucking turbine for unknown reasons.

>>32090855
>It's possible to make lighter vehicles with larger fuel tanks that would be good for several days of movement/combat on their own
Yeah, IFV's. Not tanks

>Abrams has a fucking turbine for unknown reasons.
Because it's a tank. Shit ton of armor and can move at impressive speeds.

Does it have to be parachutes?

E.g. could you have a cargo aircraft skim low and slow over an airfield or other suitably flat and large area, cargo ramp open with the lowest part no more than 0.5m above the ground, and just drive straight out?

Then the plane could just circle overhead while the deployed vehicles secured a landing zone for the rest of the logistics and stuff.

>>32088594
>Is air dropping tanks still worth it?

Is airdropping these nuts worth it?

>>32091056
>sudden cargo weight shifts at extremely low altitude

this kills the aircraft

>>32091115
They did it with ICBM.

>>32091158
citation please?

>>32091056

Honestly, the most likely mission for paratroopers in a hostile environment is securing an airstrip. In which case you would simply land a C-130 with light armour on that.

Something like Operation Entebbe, but with plans to stay longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe

>>32088613
>clip

>>32091170
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launched_ballistic_missile

Scroll down to the C-5 ICBM part. I know someone that was on that plane. Pitched the plane good but they managed.

>>32091194
Fair enough.

Still, doing things at 20,000 ft and doing things at 0.5m above ground level (about 1.6 ft) are pretty different.

File: Verdict Day.webm (3MB, 600x336px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x336px

I could see it being hella useful if you could move light tanks with transport helicopters, but by the point you can airlift an Abrams with any kind of speed around you could just make a fuckhugely armored helicopter that shits out explosives.

>>32089556
>The U.S. has so many bases around the world, no.
So that means that airdropping things is pointless for every other nation too?

File: Verdict Day..webm (3MB, 600x336px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x336px

>>32091279
Seems to me like it'd be possible to build a tank that can survive a high-altitude drop without parachutes, but having the crew survive is another thing.

Maybe have the crew HALO jump at the same time and get in, you'd have to drop a bit further out from combat but modern tanks can haul ass so it's not like infantry who would have to walk clear to where they're going.

>drop behind the front lines
>seize the bridge, airstrip, fuel depot
>curbstomp HATO rearguard
>rape their smoldering corpses before enemy had realized what has transpired and how to respond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ1yQrKYteY

File: simon+cowel[1].jpg (22KB, 600x332px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x332px

>>32091056
>just fly an aircraft down onto a hostile airstrip
>has to be actively hostile or else we'd just land, and that would fuck up the whole plan apparently
>skim above the strip at .5m
>tank just flops out the back and slams into the tarmac going 150mph with the tracks spinning in the opposite direction
>hostile base magdumps and misses because they aren't American

I think he's serious, chief.

File: Sheridan.jpg (87KB, 800x448px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x448px

>>32091056
>>32091115
>>32091177
>>32092070


This is what the US used to do.

File: Air_Base_Jeep_Coming_Out_Of_Front_Cargo_Door.jpg (66KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x449px

>>32088594

Air dropping tanks is stupid.

Light armor and small vehicles are okay, but there are better ways to do it.

Pic related.

>>32092410
>Gliderfag found his way into this thread to

Just fuck off. Litterally nobody likes you.

>>32088613
You trying to tell me you can't steer a tank mid air by firing it and survive because you land in water?

Get a load of this guy.

>>32088594
>Is air dropping tanks still worth it?
They can do everything that AMX-10RC did in Mali, but with twice more fire-power.

>>32088594
As with almost any military equipment:
Depends on your doctrine.