How much longer do tanks have as viable weapon systems?

>>32788825

What makes you think they're going to be made obsolete?

>>32788829

Similar reasons to why the Iowas are mothballed

>>32788825

Until space combat has matured to the point that ground warfare becomes irrelevant beyond pacification.

>>32788825
Not in our lifetime, so you can stop worrying about that, OP.

>>32788825
Roughly the time infantry become obsolete, never.

>>32788825
but did they die

File: RPG-29_USGov.jpg (144KB, 1453x721px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1453x721px

>>32788825
They're already obsolete

>>32788825

>T-55
>Milan

At least give a fair match up, anon.

>>32789165

You need more than ~650mm to penetrate most modern tanks from the front, anon.

>>32789344

Continuing:

Panzerfaust could penetrate any tank in WW2 from any angle. That sure made tanks obsolete, right?

>>32789344

I guess that makes your mama a Landkreuzer.

They're just going to add advanced hard kill to everything and the majority of existing ATGM will become useless again.

It will be like 100mm heat during the cold war, early on it killed everything, then advanced armor made it worthless and AP became popular again.

File: 1452288152693.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32789149
I'm sure they're fine

Long as they keep getting faster and faster, never

>>32789491
>2217
>Tanks now travel at hypersonic speed
>they are the bullets
>Go though bunkers
>"Clear" buildings
>Vaporize infantry
>Tank duels are ramming contests and generally come down to who can turn better
>The results of these duels can send tanks flying for kilometers though the air, and are catastrophic in cities

Tanks as a concept will only be obsolete when someone comes up with a better answer to the problem of; "how do you advance rapidly over open ground without getting annihilated by artillery during high intensity warfare?"

>>32788825

Once a rifleman can carry a cannon that can engage a land, air and sea targets all at once by him/herself.

File: 123462347u345.jpg (46KB, 364x428px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 364x428px

>>32789034

>He never read any 40k or Dune books.

>>32789593
Your describing Arma 3 Alpha

>>32791030
In Dune they only do orbital landing operations because they dont have sufficient warships in space (and the Space Guilds monopoly) and nukes are considered an unacceptable weapon.

>>32791030
>40k books

I love 40k and all but it's just fun

>haha we can obliterate planets
>better invade this planet rank with heretics and xenos with tanks

>>32788825
am I crazy or is there someone trying to get out of that turret top hatch right at the end?

>>32791041

nukes are considered obsolete

>>32788852
Active defenses are taking some emphasis away from passive armor and will do so more in the future. Ships just seem to have gotten there first as the combat ranges got farther and farther.

>>32791045
>we could completely ruin this planet but we lost our terraforming tech like 10000 years ago and each planet we lose in such a manner is one step closer to the extinction of humanity
>hmmm, we have all these disposable fags lying about
>it's go time

>>32791062
atomics are powerful weapons that no one wants to use did u read the fucking books

>>32791045

Now, anon, you can blow a planet with a nova bomb, but you can never take it from the enemy and call it yours.

-Starship Troopers

>>32791045

The hand-waving explanations are usually plausible enough if you want to suspend disbelief.

The usual arguments are that a planet has some sort of value, be it strategic importance (eg military industry), or irreplaceable ancient technology, and that the lives of a million guardsmen is nothing compared to that.

Also that you don't get battles on those planets which get the exterminatus treatment, so it's kind of self-selecting which ones you see.

>>32791068
>year 2174
>USA sends new littoral combat tank on test mission
>it is made of aluminium and armed with .22lr gatling gun.
>upon hitting a small twig, hull of tank cracks.
>neo-china shills shit post for hours as republic of north ameristan talk about monkey models
>a thread begins about bringing back the Abrams'

>>32791045
Negative. Strategic value absolute.

>Tanks cost 50 million
>Anti tank rocket launchers cost a couple hundred thousand dollars

They're obsolete now.

>>32789365

to be fair a panzerfaust didn't have a 2km+ range and guidance systems.

>>32788825
Quite awhile longer, actually.

People are paying attention to dumbfuck sandniggers in the desert with ancient equipment.

It's better to look at Ukraine. APS and ERA has been working brilliantly there and the number-one tank killer in Donbass is once again... another tank.

As long as tanks are supported by infantries, it's daijobu.

>>32788825
This thread highlights media bias.

You don't see every miss, every meaningless hit (if you do it's edited), every time a gunner dies...you just see every penetrating hit.

If all you saw is gunkills of atgm crews getting killed, you nignogs would think that ATGMs are obsolete.

>>32789593
Russians have 150+km/h tank scouts reported
Don't know about US, but if Russians have this, they truly have something similiar

>>32791170
>and the number-one tank killer in Donbass is once again... another tank.
Lol no.

>>32791209
The number one tank killer in Donbass is called a Grad.

>>32791149
>aircraft carriers cost $6 billion
>anti-ship missiles cost $1 million

>fighters cost $100 million
>anti aircraft rocket launchers cost $40k

>infantry costs $30,000 a year
>a bullet costs $0.40

>>32791068

Unlike ships though, pure armor will probably never entirely go away from tanks, if only to protect them against landmines and other things the active defenses wouldn't be able to detect. Being able to shoot down ATGM would be a major boon nevertheless, and give light tanks much needed survivability as to make them viable enough for the US again.

>>32791082

The Sheridan was a tank designed from the perspective of mobile-long range combat systems akin to modern destroyers, and it was pretty much a land version of the LCS. It would have probably appreciated trophy had they held onto it for a decade longer.

>>32791228
>>infantry costs $30,000 a year
>>a bullet costs $0.40

>your mother costs $2 a hour
>a condom costs $0.1

File: rtudgf.jpg (130KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1440x810px

The "Tanks are obsolete" meme on 4chan is getting annoying at this point.

I agree that tanks are becoming more and more vulnerable on modern battlefields, but they're nowhere near obsolete. This mainly comes down to piss-shit C2 from shit-tier militaries.

Both in the offensive and defensive, they are to be extremely mobile. As we can see in the ME and Ukraine, tanks are often used in a static role. This eliminates the main advantage of armoured vehicles - mobility - the ability to fire and disappear in seconds.


Most of the destruction we see is attacks from kilometres away with ATGMs, this honestly comes down to shit C2 (Command and Control) Their leadership is too fucking god-awful to be bothered to keep this armoured units constantly on the move and the crews are too shit to have the initiative and common sense to increase their own and their vehicles' survivability.

In Western militaries, our armoured crews and leadership are taught that mobility and firing whilst on the move is paramount. In defensive positions, tanks are never supposed to be sitting at the front in clear sight of the enemy. Any cunt with half a brain knows that this just invites attacks against them, it's common sense...

>>32791170
>APS and ERA work brilliantly

Because Russia was giving shitty surplus to the rebels and Ukraine's ENTIRE tech base is '1970s Russia but upgraded to 90s Russian tech as best as possible'.

That's why the ERA and APS work so well. The shit they are throwing at the tanks happens to be the same shit they were tested against.

This thread gets posted in all manners of flavour and the informed posters all agree that the reason 90% of these weapons are being defeated is age and the fact the tech is all based off prior iterations of the shit they were proof against.

Same as the 'US flares didn't do shit against Russian A2A missiles because they tested them on Aim-9s and thought the Russian missiles were being retrofitted to counter the flares' stuff.

Ofc when you test your own equipment against your own defense it'll work. That's all you have to test against. The reason US parity tech was amazing during the 90s was because the US was buying up all the East German weapons stockpiles left over by Russia and testing defenses against them. Now it's starting to fall off again.

It's just a fact that you can only depend on a defence as long as you can test it against what you defend against.

>>32791228
War is obsolete if you only think in an economical way

>>32791230
Sheridans were pieces of shit: just think of the gun system

>>32788825
As much as they would have protection from missiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLCVi6PVNdY

File: gwioh.jpg (183KB, 1480x1024px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1480x1024px

>>32791262

For example. I was once at a live-fire range practice of an Australian armoured troop. The Abrams' were practicing firing while both they and the targets were moving.

The targets were pig wooden targets which were fixed to poles on either side (think fence posts). They destroyed the targets and instead of replacing them they literally started targeting the posts that the targets were fixed onto. From over a kilometer away, these tanks, which were moving, were hitting targets, which were moving, that were just a couple of inches wide, without fail. That's the essence of Western armoured tactics. We're trained to destroy targets on the move with pinpoint accuracy so we can score the kill and disappear.

>>32789344
>You need more than ~650mm to penetrate most modern tanks from the front, anon.
>*citation needed*
>pro tip: propaganda numbers from wikipedia don't count.

>>32791262
>braggadocio of autsists who never encountered real ATGM treat

>>32791262
This right the fuck here.

Followed closely by the fucking fact that modern ATGM's are fired at armor they are meant to easily defeat.

>>32789133
infantry will become obsolete eventually.

>>32791314
not in my lifetime

>>32791291

Nobody denies that ATGMs kill tanks, but that threat can be managed by using the mobility of tanks to bypass the most heavily defended areas, reconnaissance & intelligence to identify enemy defensive positions, and indirect fire support to suppress, destroy and obscure (with smoke) ATGMs to minimise the threat.

Looking at ATGMs vs MBTs in a vacuum is pointless when the reality between advanced opponents will be combined arms warfare.

>>32791291
>retard who thinks tanks are better used as static gun emplacements instead of hiding behind hills and cresting to shoot, then retreat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7FUjVHx46c

>>32791032
>Implying this doesn't still happen.

>>32791281

The RPG-29 has a penetration of 750 mm (no ERA) and 600 mm (after ERA) against RHA according to official values from the manufacturer.

Tanks were never invulnerable.
Nor are ATGM's a silver bullet.
If you use them properly they are useful. If you use them badly they are less useful.
People don't understand the importance of combined arms nor do they understand the need to employ forces so they work optimally considering their task and training.
It's like deploying SAS in full strength in one sector and sending them all to charge on a trench with no support. Guess what, most of them will die, and do only marginally better than average conscript with 6 weeks of training.

>>32788825
Well if they are we are back to static trench lines so let's hope not.

>>32788852
the fuck is a lowa

>>32791149
>>Tanks cost 50 million
Are you fucking retarded? No modern MBT even comes close to this number.

>>32791314
yes.

I get the idea that APS will save the tank from RPGs and ATGMs and even older tank weapons, but why would that save the actual tank from becoming obsolete? Would it not be better to equip infantry and IFVs with a lightweight APS as protection against ATGMs and others who still use tanks? It would make logistics a whole lot easier because you dont have any tanks yourself saving yourself the trouble to keep the giant things supplied and hidden from enemies.

>>32791228

tbqh aircraft carriers are obsolete as fuck and all's it's gonna take is one big war between American and China to prove it

Turns out egg-baskets are pretty vunerable to hypersonic anti-ship missiles

>>32791197
>If all you saw is gunkills of atgm crews getting killed

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a single recorded instance of a tank taking out a ATGM (and not a RPG) team in Syria

Tanks are just too vulnerable

File: Iowa in Port.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32791537

>>32791436
Pro tip: there are no official values from the manufacturers of tanks in the public domain or any proofs to support their protection claims.

>>32792269
A war between the US and China would go down with the Chinese firing those missiles, most of them missing/getting intercepted, maybe one or two hits, and then every launch site found on land instantly becomes priority target.
Chinese anti-ship missiles is one of the most obnoxious things spouted these days and there is NO proof they would actually work. So until they actually do sink a carrier, shut up.

>>32793000
>most of them missing/getting intercepted

This is what Americans believe, despite the growing Chinese electronics industry and the extremely low amount of Interception systems in your average American carrier group compared to a Russian or Chinese one

>>32793042
CHING CHONG
PING PON
CHINA STRONG

Give it a rest, Cheng. Put up or shut up.

>>32788825
Always wondered if the crews bodies are ripped apart when the turret is blown off.

>>32793059

It's more of a flash-cooking situation as the ammo blows.

They've found crew members still alive, but literally fucking cooked medium-well. I'm pretty sure they just put them out of their misery

>>32788825
as lost as there are humans, there will be armor.

Its just a matter of time and money before someone builds a small goalkeeper that you can mount on the tank i bet most of the software that we use in driverless cars has no problem tracking a projectile thats within 100m. Or just mount the current goalkeeper on a flatbed and drag it along 100m might be to short for them though i dont know.

File: M1 Abrams RPG hit.jpg (2MB, 2832x2128px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2832x2128px

>>32792860

But there are instances of modern tanks going up against RPG-29's and tanking the hit easily, so...

>>32791129
Underrated post.

>>32791197
>when you realize all government information and all public media statements are just as much propaganda as the videos uploaded by non-state/unrecognized/terrorist actors

>>32791266
war IS obsolete, our currency is the reserve of virtually the entire world and it's impossible to go back (until it collapses into worthlessness). if you think any other way than "economical" then you don't fucking have anything because you can't buy it.

>>32795163

Well, not so much that the videos themselves are propaganda, as the lack of videos showing the other situations can be interpreted as a sort of anti-propaganda

>>32791278
Tell me that picture is mirrored because the carry handle on that fal is driving me insane.

>>32792860

M1A1HA can withstand at least 1000mm CE according to Zaloga and a defense document

Iraqis leaked the M1A1M is 1300mm CE

Leo 2 is about the same as the M1, or a little better, for comparable dates.

We've seen a US M1 withstand PG-29V on the front turret without perforation (AAR said such; Wikileaks has them all up from Iraq). ~650mm after ERA

We've seen the M1A1M withstand AT-5 hits on the turret. ~600mm.

We've seen the AT-14 perforate with M1A1M on the turret front without too much in the way of after armor effects (light wounds). ~1200mm after ERA

The CR2 had the front hull perforated by a PG-29V, but that is to be expected based on how thick the plate is, and that the ERA alone probably wouldn't cut the penetration of the PG-29V down enough. The add on composite blocks were made to protect from this.

CR2 on the gunner's sight (not the far thicker turret cheeks), withstood Milan, which is ~700mm

T-90 was said to be protected from TOW-2A, which is why TOW-2B was made; ~1000mm after ERA

>>32788825
For as long as we need something that works with infantry and air to break the enemies will to fight.

File: clankening.gif (426KB, 363x339px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 363x339px

>>32795183
There are countries trying to buck the USD (Iraq, Libya, Syria) in favor of a monetary system that isn't fiat based, but we just keep going to war and ousting their leaders every time they try it. War ain't obsolete, it's the only thing keeping the USD the worldwide oil currency.

File: pw.jpg (103KB, 736x601px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 736x601px

>>32788825
Will mechs such as those in MechWarrior ever replace tanks?
Assume we have the technology

(we almost do)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0ZadoooI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMlJQ0G3zk4

>>32798042
If this is a serious question: lurkmoar, this has been answered 10 trillion time

>no, mechs can do nothing that tanks cannot do but have more weaknesses such as joints and the fact that anything that heavy on legs would sink real deep into almost any surface
If you're trolling then I commend you!

>>32792269

>turns out

It already turned out that way, did it?

>>32791314
That's the same as saying man will become obsolete eventually

>>32798109

Yes, but idiotic Americans actually believe Super-carriers are better than smaller-carriers

>>32799020
The operational capabilities of a carrier scale dramatically once you reach 1000' in length. Nothing else compares, so why bother building any other form of CATOBAR carrier? We have plenty of STOVL carriers too.

>>32792269
Being possible to destroy does not make something obsolete.

Those carriers provide a unique and massive capability, the possibility of some being lost in a major war doesn't mean they're obsolete. They'll be obsolete when there's a better replacement.

They might not be able to go too close to the Chinese coast for much longer, just as you wouldn't send fighters over heavy SAM presence without SEAD. Doesn't make them obsolete and puts into perspective that potential rivalry

>>32791263

> Because Russia was giving shitty surplus to the rebels and Ukraine's ENTIRE tech base is '1970s Russia but upgraded to 90s Russian tech as best as possible'.

So I guess the T-72B3's that forms the backbone of Russian armor is a shitty surplus.

File: T-80U snow.jpg (244KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x798px

>>32799488

In 2017?

Yes

T-80U is the minimum standard for acceptable tanks, followed by the T-90

>>32791263
>APS work so well.
It can't work very well because it is almost non-existent now. The only fielded hard-kill APS is Trophy. Though soon Afganit will be in service too.
>Same as the 'US flares didn't do shit against Russian A2A missiles because they tested them on Aim-9s and thought the Russian missiles were being retrofitted to counter the flares' stuff.
>Same as the 'US flares didn't do shit against Russian A2A missiles because they tested them on Aim-9s and thought the Russian missiles were being retrofitted to counter the flares' stuff.
All modern IR missiles has some countermeasuers against flares. If we talking about latest Aim-9, it is more resistant to flares than any R-73 due to IIR seeker.

File: Terminator-2-1200x873[1].png (2MB, 1200x873px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x873px

>>32798435
He will.

Well, I don't want to be the devils advocate. But no tank can handle more the 2 days worth of rain.

Hard to believe, but if you get a tank wet. It won't operate anymore. That's why you never see a tank outside when it's raining. Only soldiers that have seen combat in the rain know this. Anyone that tries to deny this is either gay or lying about being gay if stay silent.

>>32791025
gundams

>>32801889
what?

>>32799522
you're fucking retarded
The T80U is inferior to the T72B3 in every regard.
The B3 is a 2012 version of the 72, and has day and night fighting equipment way above of what the T-80U of any period has, and thats not counting the superior armor protection.

File: 145834614416745.jpg (176KB, 1200x667px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1200x667px

>>32796533
>according to Zaloga
Stopped reading there.

>a defense document
>We've seen a US M1 withstand PG-29V on the front turret without perforation
>CR2 on the gunner's sight (not the far thicker turret cheeks), withstood Milan
>*citation needed*
There are no reason to believe westaboos now. They are BTFO beyond any measure and now must provide solid proofs for anything they say, starting from most basic things. Era of taking their propaganda for facts is ended forever.

>>32795081
looks more like it didn't detonate..

To the discussion of mechs and gundums, I can see them actually having a place in Law enforcement, occupation, or oppression. A lot of the weaknesses they have involving terrain, weather, and maintenance are offset in an urban environment. Theyre also intimidating and cool as hell, so they serve public suppression roles quite well.

And no, tanks will never be obsolete until infantry are obsolete and war is all just a bunch of crazy robotic weapons systems trying to annihilate each other.

its funny because i never saw an ATGM protect infantry against machinegun fire

>>32801993
So... it tanked the hit.

>>32791314
>nfantry will become obsolete eventually.
[RETARDEDNESS INTENSIFIES]

>>32788825
A long time.

Sure you can show numerous videos of ATGM's wrecking them just like you can show even more photos of them being blow up by a mine. In fact, you can fight mighty WW2 heavy tanks torn to pieces by a 150-155mm howitzers and I doubt many modern tanks would survive repeated hits from those as well.

However if you want to have mobile shield for your infantry to hide behind, a motorized vehicle that can clear minefields, tore up barbed wire and remove roadblocks all while providing direct fire support, well you're gonna need a tank or at least IFV.

The key of why are tanks so great that almost every army in the world uses them and wants them is their flexibility. Outside of mentioned roles they can be a troop carrier of sorts(not just IFV's, you can put your infantry on most tanks and carry them like that if trucks break and you need to move them somehow), towing vehicle, artillery supplement(many tanks have indirect fire sights) and it doesn't end here.

>>32793084
Where?
It's an instant death.

File: GotATank-copia[1].jpg (229KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1024x683px

>>32802026
hi

>>32802067
Ah yes, robot on robot war. The war that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Retarded ultra-autism right there.

>>32802033
>However if you want to have mobile shield for your infantry to hide behind
Found retard.

File: Leopard 2 ford.jpg (941KB, 3118x2078px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 3118x2078px

>>32801889

What a fucking queer

>>32801979
>Stopped reading there.
Why? Zalogas number for the M1A1HA comes from the soviets.

>>32801959
>and thats not counting the superior armor protection.
Kontakt 5

The armor configuration can be anywhere from obr 1983, obr 1985 or obr 1989.

>>32803197
never knew they made germans that tall

Why hasn't anybody designed a tank for urban warfare yet?

>future of war is getting more urban by the day
>tenks are still most vulnerable up top
>tenks still have a hard time fighting close elevated opponents

Why don't they put a fiddy cal on an extendable arm?

>>32803451
>master race

>>32792299
why don't they convert them into giant floating cruise missile batteries?

>>32788825
After infantry is phased out, aka never.
Also posting a T-55 getting wrecked by a modern ATGM is not an argument otherwise.

>>32803462
Thats already a thing, pretty much every tank out there now has an RWS available to it. Check out the BMP-T when you get a chance.

>>32803518
But it can't raise the guns way high, can it?

File: terminator.jpg (282KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 800x533px

>>32803532
45 degrees is pretty adequate, anything higher and it is infantry's job to support your armor. If you're sending armor into an urban area without infantry you're either arab or a retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator

File: 2948672-gijoe-retaliation-cobra-special-forces-hiss-tank-image.jpg (265KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 2048x1362px

>>32803587
I'm not talking about aiming up, I'm talking about physically elevating the guns to clear a roof.

Think this abomination but actually properly designed.

>>32791129
Are we sending in THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL?

>>32803483

Because putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea

Better five smaller missile frigates than one big missile battleship

>>32791149
Try 10m and 10-80k

>>32802100
SAUCE?

>>32788825
When offensive drones become widely used.

So not much longer. Enter the return of SPAAG

>>32791807
Yes, combined arms tactics work miracles for protecting tanks from man portable ATGMs, thank you for figuring shit out.

>>32803823
https://youtu.be/kZE30bvLSlo

>>32793042
Ching chong chang chang ching chong

File: T-72 equipped with the Moderna turret.jpg (359KB, 1280x689px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1280x689px

>>32803946

Why don't more tanks have dedicated AA suites?

>>32804035
Western tanks don't have it because HATO expects to have air supremacy over any battlefield
Russian and Chinese ones don't have it because they have powerful AA already
but in the presence of an asymmetric threat like drone swarms, it will probably become fashionable to stick a 20 mm RAAWS on anything and everything
next step: family sized 40 mm IR missile packs, Iron Dome style

>>32804035

You do know the Moderna turret doesn't actually work, right? It's propaganda, the guns are just for show, they can't actually engage flying targets;

File: the eternal argument.jpg (92KB, 528x268px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 528x268px

This is the earliest example of this thread I can find.

File: hqdefault.jpg (34KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x360px

>>32804035
Because Pantsir M exists.

File: trophy aps.webm (194KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 480x360px

Nope. ATGMs are obsolete.

File: starship trooper.jpg (31KB, 538x357px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 538x357px

>>32791314
Then we'll just be MOBILE INFANTRY

>>32803241
>*citation needed*
Is the only one answer that westaboos blabbering now deserve.

>>32791062

Nope, They've gotten so powerful that they have nukes called stone burners that can crack a planet. They aren't used because all the powerful houses will retaliate. Kind of like MAD in space.

File: 02_militarum_tempestus_commissar_lrf_140410_by_luches-d7dv2a1.jpg (1MB, 1600x1191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1191px

>>32791129
>Too bad we didn`t get a sequel
But now we have the scions, send in them

File: 600x500xHandTool.jpg.pagespeed.ic.VtJsdCHhmZ.jpg (71KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x500px

The Panzerfaust could penetrate most tanks until the very end of the war, and they didn't consider tanks obsolete back then.