Are MBTs ded?

>>32352832
T90 wasn't

>>32352832
This question has been asked back in the 60's.
>1. Don't be a sandnigger.
>2. Use Infantry support.
>3. Keep moving.
>4. See #1.

>>32352836
Crew survived, but tank was taken out.

>>32352845
Only shtora and sights, the difference is that tank captured by rebels can't be fixed by them meanwhile russians can easily fix that t90

The question should be

>is there any MBT that wasn't destroyed in an actual conflict?

Tank casualties are an inevitability. They occurred before there were even anti tank weapons.

If you want to continue with your question, though, almost a third of the list in the image hasn't even seen combat in the middle east.

File: t90 Hit By TOW.jpg (154KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x599px

>>32352853
>Only shtora and sights
Right, because that's all you can see in the one photo of the tank taken post-hit, which incidentally was taken from the wrong side to see the damage properly.
The crew bailed out and the tank was out of action, it's a credit to the vehicle that the crew survived but it was clearly taken out of action.

>>32352832
>Are MBTs ded
no, want it or not tanks are a key element in modern ground combat

>Is there any MBT that wasn't destroyed in middle east?

No, because no one particular weapon is indestructible and unbeatable. Of course you're going to take losses.

>All it took was missile

All it takes to kill grunt is AK and sandman to shoot it.

All it takes to shoot down helicopter is MANDPAD and sandman to shoot it.

All it takes to kill MRAP is a big enough IED, and a sandman to set it up.

All it takes to sink an aircraft carrier is a bunch of explosive speedboats, and sandmen to drive them.

All it takes to destroy FOB is a couple mortars, and sandmen to launch them.

Why even bother?

>inb4 tanks are not for gorilla warfare

You say that as if it isn't a valid point. That's literally liberal tier thinking. Listing a commonly accepted fact or argument does not somehow invalidate it.

Tanks are supposed to rapidly advance in large numbers across open land, under cover of artillery and air attack, with support from mechanised infantry, and to penetrate enemy defensive lines before they can respond.

Individual tanks being destroyed in asymmetric warfare is meaningless with regards to the tanks true purpose. In a large scale conflict ATGM armed infantry should be suppressed by artillery, obstructed by smoke, interdicted by air as they move to counter the tanks, kept in front of the MBTs where the protection has a the best chance of resisting the ATGM and in the near future APS systems will lower the pk of ATGMs further.

Are knights ded?

Is there any Order that wasn't destroyed in the middle east?
Templars, Hospitaller, Sepulchre, Lazarus.

All it took was a spear/crossbow, and a sandman wielding it.

>inb4 Knights are not for gorilla warfare

>>32352913
It's a response bait thread
dont take it seriously

>>32352832
I would take ISIS still pictures from a video as evidence for the Leopards being destroyed.

Until further evidence, I remain quite sceptical.

>>32352832
No.

While romantic Tank on Tank land ship navy battles peaked and ended in WW2 a tank is still a highly mobile cannon that can resist small arms fire.


Think the pacific in WW2, due to the jungles tank battles were not really a thing, but Marines still enjoyed getting support from Shermans to blow up machine gun nests.

>>32352832

At least the Leclerc was built upon the notion that mobility beats armor any time of the week.

Was there any Leclerc actually destroyed in Yemen? I heard several were damaged by IED or RPG and even one was hit by an ATGM killing one crew.

File: Gorilla warfare.jpg (42KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x400px

>>32352832

>>32352922
Sounds like the tank needs five arms to wipe its ass. Why even build one if the theories have nothing to do with reality.

>>32353287
Sounds like you have no grasp of combined arms warfare. Welcome to the 1930s.

Infantry are vulnerable to everything on the battlefield, and no one is suggesting they are obsolete. Rather, they have a job to do and must be supported by other elements.

>>32352832
I didn't even know that Europe, Japan and India had tanks deployed in Middle East...

>>32353299
Combined arms warfare to battle other armies using combined arms - which never happens in reality. They should scrap all our modern tanks and build indestructible anti gorilla vehicles instead.

>>32353313

Sure, while we're at it we can scrap air superiority fighters, scrap air defense warships, scrap all submarines, and scrap all nuclear weapons as they haven't been needed yet, so are completely pointless, right?

A credible deterrent, both conventional and nuclear, is being used to keep the peace even when it isn't being used to make war.

>>32353305

The UAE have French tanks deployed in Yemen.

>>32353313
The closest thing we have indestructible vehicles are MBTs anon. Nothing is indestructible.

Combined arms warfare does happen. Look at the Gulf Wars, Arab-Israeli Wars, and Falklands War.

And if we get rid of our conventional forces, what are we going to do when Russia decided it wants the Baltic states back, or the Norks go for reunification? Send our counter insurgency forces up against battalions of T-90s? It's mentalities like yours that are fucking over western militaries around the world.

>>32353360
We could've taken Iraq with humvees if we wanted to. You are thinking too much inside the box. The tank is an antiquated concept designed for WW2 style combat. At the moment we need completely different kinds of vehicles, but we're not even trying to build them.

>>32353107
None destroyed that I heard of, and I know there's a looot of higher ups here in France keeping a VERY close eye to how they perform.

>>32353377

>We could've taken Iraq with humvees if we wanted to.

Please tell me how the USA would have rapidly advanced hundreds of miles off road then fought the Battle of 73 Easting and Battle of Norfolk with just humvees, at the same speed, without suffering far more losses.

I'm all ears.

>>32353377
No, we couldn't have done. Send humvees up against T-72s and see what happens. We beat the Iraqis so quickly because of our grasp of combined arms and other RMAs.

>>32352863
That retard who said the T90 was "fixable" is such a fucking dipshit. You can clearly see the outer chassis is completely structurally fucked

>>32353107
UAE Leclerc wheels chain broke because of a mine, but it stayed operational.
No loss

>>32353354
Ah yes I forgot that. At least someone use this tank in real combat. After a quick search it seems that none has been destroyed.

>>32353436
The Russians will just bang that out with hammers.

>>32352832
merkavas are pretty stonk

File: 585087_original.jpg (216KB, 1036x691px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1036x691px

>>32353377
>We could've taken Iraq with humvees if we wanted to.

It those HMMVs had ATGMs mounted that outrange the T-72's gun maybe. Otherwise, T-72s just roll over HMMVs and that's that.

>>32353436
>You can clearly see the outer chassis is completely structurally fucked

Pls mark the fucked up spots. can't see anything.

>>32353517

None of the Leclerc, but some Saudi AMX30 got rekt I think.

>>32353562
We could use HMMWV's as VBIED's.

>>32353436
>You can clearly see the outer chassis is completely structurally fucked
that is just how they are built, what do you expect from slavic vodka monkeys

>>32353562
Humvees still can't cover ground in the same way a tank can. It's not going to make it over rubble, and it sure as hell isn't going to take incoming fire well.

>>32352842
>infantry
>reactive armor

>hurrr then place them far from the tank
>where they cant actually give support in a urban scenario

Get chocked on a bag of dicks fagot

>>32353377
>125mm gun
>a bunch of yahoos inbreed corn theet bk niggers

sure.

>>32352832
Challenger 2.

>>32354207
Yup CH2 was only killed by friendly fire, none lost to hostile action - not for lack of trying either.

The one that was lost wasn't even an armour penetration, HESH went off on an open cupola and blew out the inside of the tank causing it to brew up a few seconds later.

>>32354716
Does the chally not have any blowout hatches?

>>32355467
>Does the chally not have any blowout hatches?
None. Projectiles are stored in open racks, charge bags are stored in armored bins that do not have any blowout vent.

Asking that is like asking if airplanes are dead because they get shot down.

>>32352832
>don't be a redneck burger
>install APS
>...?
>profit!

File: Screenshot (281).png (895KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 1366x768px

>>32353868
>Get chocked on a bag of dicks fagot

The meme of ERA hurting infantry again. In 2016. After all that Syria war footage. Dude. When an RPG hits anything there is massive high speed copper spatter all over the place. Same goes for a LRP, those fins shear off and fly all over the place. ERA doesn't do shit to infantry, it's the incoming warheads that produce massive amounts of frag. If you think infantry is safe in between no ERA sporting tanks you are uneducated as fuck. Pic related.

>>32356077
The charge bag bin is a "wet" stowage bin.
So when it gets hit, the charge bags get soaked.

>>32356138
Honestly infantry are going to be keeping their distance from the tank anyway, first due for reasons you listed, second because if you're standing anywhere near the tank when its main gun goes off, you're going to have a bad time.

This thread is so retarded, in WW2 tanks could be killed fucking AT-rifles, and fucking 50mm turrets. Now you need specialized anti-tank rocket, and that doesnt even guaranty that a tank will die. A tanks is there to lead a charge.

There might be a bit of a grey area in between "completely invulnerable" and "dead". If you require the former to go anywhere, well, just grab a long stick and the biggest white sheet you can find.

>>32353313
>which never happens in reality

...yeah, that has never happened. Ever.

>>32353377
>At the moment we need completely different kinds of vehicles, but we're not even trying to build them.

Which is a very different thing form the MBT being an outdated concept that will never again become useful. And we don't exactly need to scrap them to build those other vehicles. You don't throw out all your cooking pots just because you're going to fry something.

>>32356228
In WW2 tanks that could be killed by AT riles and light 37mm AT guns were found unsatisfactory performing adn outdated and replaced by more tough skinned designs. In their turn AT rifles and 37mm AT guns were dropped too as losing sword and shield competition.

>>32353377
>At the moment we need completely different kinds of vehicles, but we're not even trying to build them.

Such as?

File: star shaped scars in armor from fins of APFSDS rounds.jpg (183KB, 1300x600px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1300x600px

>>32356214
and yet people still perpetuate the idea of infantry next to tanks even on k.

>>32352832
Guess planes are obsolete now too since one has been shot down before, ships obsolete because they can sink, and infantry obsolete because they can get shot.

>>32356214

WHAT? GITMO BATH TIME?

>>32356293
Gliderborne M113s equipped with 16-inch railguns, of course.

>>32356651

Needs more BRRRRRT...

>>32352832
>Are helicopters dead? All it takes is a guy with a MANPADS
>Are jets dead? All it takes is a SAM
>Are ships dead? All it takes is a ASM
>Are infantry dead? All it takes is a bullet

Losses are fucking inevitable, you retard. Just because something can be destroyed does not make everything in its classification obsolete.

>a tank blew up somewhere
>because if a weapon specifically designed to defeat it and ONLY it
>this means it's worthless

Are you autistic

>>32353868
>tanks
>in an urban scenario

2nd lieutenant detected

>>32356194
>The charge bag bin is a "wet" stowage bin.
>So when it gets hit, the charge bags get soaked.
Yeah, because those wet bins worked so well for Iraqi Chieftains fighting against Iran. That's sarcasm, in case you can't tell. They brewed up just fine. I'm looking for the video...

>>32356138
That fucking pic is mislabelled. The "ISIS convoy" was an SAA tank patrol from very early in the war.

>>32353137

RIP in peace, Corporal Harambe.

File: 1900 Photograph of combat soldier representatives.jpg (96KB, 700x429px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 700x429px

Is there any infantry that wasn't killed in the Middle East?

Marines, Army, Russians, FFL, IDF

All it took was an AK/PKM and a sandman shooting it.

>inb4 infantry isn't for gorilla warfare

>>32352963

I read that His Majesty's Minister of Yeomanry wants to cancel the knights entirely to buy more arquebuses

You can't even shoot an arquebus on horseback, this is fucking insane, we will be helpless if a real war starts.

>>32356960
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpFdVEmTWaQ

Sorry, Iranian not Iraqi. This isn't even the vid I have in mind.

File: Warty_wat.jpg (75KB, 497x576px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 497x576px

>>32352863

>T-90 2 STRONK 4 U

>>32352922
>intended for mass advance over open terrain

>entire world increasingly more urbanized
>agricultural technology advanced to the point of allowing urban farms to have ever increasing harvests, albeit currently very small
>helicopters exist for supply transport
>drone technology advancing to allow drones to carry more and more supplies, albeit currently very small
>movements and occupations of open terrain mean less and less every year

>IFVs advanced enough to carry similar weaponry as MBTs, albeit without equivalent armor
>anti-tank weapons much more effective than they used to be
>MBTs are at around the same cost compared to their countermeasures as aircraft, without providing nearly the same amount of firepower

MBT's are incredibly neat, but they will very soon be obsolete. Maintain and keep the current stock, but there is no reason to build any more of them or dedicate research to make them better since their usefulness is relegated to parts of the world that are becoming increasingly less valuable every year.

>>32357002
can someone tell me the context of this picture?

Is it from a WWI world meeting to show each participating country what their soldiers look like (uniforms)?

>>32357264

It's a picture of troops from the 8 Nation's Alliance during the Boxer Rebellion

>>32352832
>Is there any MBT that wasn't destroyed in the middle east?

Merkava fitted with Trophy APS do so well that Namer are being fitted next. Raytheon are developing APS with the goal of defeating main gun rounds, not just missiles and RPG.

All discussions of modern AFV are incomplete without APS, but only Israel cares enough about casualties to use Trophy. The US rejected Trophy because it's about a million bucks per vehicle, which is still less than a three man crew worth of SGLI death payouts.

>>32353377
>At the moment we need completely different kinds of vehicles, but we're not even trying to build them.

Because we don't need completely different kinds of vehicles and I defy you to specifically articulate WHAT "completely different" vehicles could be built which are improvements.

>>32357029
>Propellant is the only thing that can burn in a tank

You're not too clever, are you?

>>32357154
>MBTs are at around the same cost compared to their countermeasures as aircraft, without providing nearly the same amount of firepower

Idiotic false comparison. There are very, very few aircraft. Aircraft cannot fight effectively in all weathers. Aircraft are not organic to land forces. Aircraft firepower and endurance are extremely limited, especially now the US scrapped slow loitering CAS options except A-10 of which there aren't many.

The Israelis repeatedly prove the efficacy of heavy armor in urban combat. Instead of listening to armchair warrior faggots like yourself, they continually evolve their AFV designs. APS makes Merkava and Namer survivable.

Helicopters are terrible at logistics which is why the vast majority of supplies move overland. Unless you are in some tiny forward base, helicopter logistics cannot sustain a fight. Do you even helo?

A drone is just an aircraft and PAYLOAD breakthroughs aren't happening. Cure your ignorance. Airborne logistics is insanely expensive. The US had to fucking rent Antonovs to get MRAPs etc to A-stan because even America can't afford enough strategic and tactical airlift!

>>32352832

Still a higher survivability rating than infantry ATM. And if we really wanted to, we could reintroduce chemical weapons to give infantry 0% survivability and force militaries to completely mechanize, removing them from the equation a-la horse cavalry.

Tanks aren't going anywhere.

>>32357154

The reason the MBT was so relevant in the Cold War was because the main front of the conflict would be decided on the plains of northern Europe, under an unprecedented hail of artillery fire, and the likely usage of tactical nuclear weapons, which made AFVs mandatory to survive.

The next focus of the arms race is the air and seas of the Western Pacific, where AFVs are irrelevant. However, if Europe were to become at risk of massive war again, the tank would make a return simply because there is not a replacement for it in high-intensity land warfare.

>>32357154
>MBT's are incredibly neat, but they will very soon be obsolete.

This, along with everything else you said, has been said since the 50's and 60's.
But look how things have turned out, and will continue to turn out.

It's a constant arms race between armour and anti-armour weapons.
ATGMs used to be the bane of tanks, then they developed composite armour and ERA.
Tandem-warheads were developed, so even more advanced composite armour and heavy ERA were developed along with soft-kill countermeasures.
Top-attack missiles started appearing, the concept of "layered defence" begins to appear, incorporating new composite armour and ERA, hard-kill countermeasures, and soft-kill countermeasures


It's a constant tug-of-war, but there's always going to be a need for the MBT.

And on the topic of urban fighting, we're seeing the concept of the "heavy IFV". An IFV in the same weight class as an MBT, heavily armoured and sometimes armed with a remote turret containing an autocannon & ATGMs/Anti-Infantry missiles.

Russian concept so far is to have 2 heavy IFVs supporting every MBT in urban combat, and in open areas 2 MBTs with one heavy IFV supporting them.

>>32357472
Chems aren't all that good. It took multiple missions to gas Halabja which is a fixed target that was full of unprotected civilians. Sarin in the Jap subway wasn't all that either.

I wouldn't LIKE to be in MOPP 4 for several days (12 hour shifts in training sucked enough) but you can dress for chems much more effectively than you can dress for shrapnel. Infantry can move out from under chems, and chems make it extremely inconvenient to occupy a smegged area. All downside, no upside.

>>32357364
>fuels and hydro
>ever responsible for a brew-up
Read a book kiddo!

>>32357547
>The next focus of the arms race is the air and seas of the Western Pacific, where AFVs are irrelevant.

WHOSE focus? The US Navy looking for a mission so its rice bowl doesn't shrink neglects the reality of upcoming decades of Middle East wars.

The US has no reason to fight conventional wars in the Pacific. In fact we have no reason to defend our legion of useless parasites who we'd be better off ceding to Beijing.

>>32357575
>I wouldn't LIKE to be in MOPP 4 for several days (12 hour shifts in training sucked enough) but you can dress for chems much more effectively than you can dress for shrapnel. Infantry can move out from under chems, and chems make it extremely inconvenient to occupy a smegged area. All downside, no upside.
>12 hours in MOPP4
>even one minute in MOPP4
I'd rather die of the gas, thank you very much.

File: main-qimg-66c17ebf29b194e8bfc6e1041bf230bd.png (402KB, 572x286px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 572x286px

>>32357600
>The US has no reason to fight conventional wars in the Pacific
How's middle school treating you? Have you ever considered that maybe you should acknowledge your ignorance and stfu while the adults are talking?

>>32357599
>Any time a tank is on fire it's because of the propellant!

Looks like reading comprehension isn't a strong suite either, nor is analyzing video footage.

Propellant tends to light almost as soon as the vehicle is hit, due to being the most flammable and numerous objects.
Fuel, hydraulics, batteries, cables, seat upholstery, engine oil, transmission oil, any plastic used for controls or buttons, electrical systems....all will fuel a fire.
The vehicle in your video took a nasty hit, two crew members immediately jumped out (Commander & Loader from the looks of it).

It continues to lightly burn until coming to a stop, when the fire has spread throughout the engine & fighting compartment, engulfing the vehicle.

That's not a "brew-up", a brew up is FAST. It happens in seconds, creating a massive eruption of flames for a couple seconds as the propellant is consumed.


>B-but muh blow-out panels

Blow-out panels don't magically stop your tank from catching fire, it just contains and propellant fire long enough for the crew to escape the vehicle.
And that's if the ammunition hatch is closed, if it's open you're going to have a bad day.

>>32357599
>Middle Easterners
>Competent tankers

Fuckers are known for throwing in as much ammo as possible into their tanks, regardless if there is space in the autoloader, ammunition rack, or stowage bin.
But take a look at your video again, it shows two crew members bailing out. If they got out, the rest of the crew probably did as well.

>>32357735
>Fuel, hydraulics, batteries, cables, seat upholstery, engine oil, transmission oil, any plastic used for controls or buttons, electrical systems....all will fuel a fire.

You forgot the crew themselves or their clothing.

>>32357002
Fucking manlets, when will they learn.

>>32357654
>How's middle school treating you? Have you ever considered that maybe you should acknowledge your ignorance and stfu while the adults are talking?

Articulate examples of conventional wars the US should fight in the Pacific and hypothetical reasoning behind them.