Modern anti-tank weapons can kill practically any tank on the

>>34118707
here ya go anon, because I feel bad
>(you)

Disregarding ADS, you're basically correct. Whats your point? Are you getting ready to post the stale "tanks are obsolete" maymay?

>>34118737
>Whats your point?

Are you fucking illiterate?

It's the first line of my post.

>>34118707
As much as I agree with your statement in principle, a tank was never an impenetrable, unstoppable force. It's all about tactics and mobility.

>>34118754
>It's all about tactics and mobility.
Let's relinquish heavy armor then.

>>34118750
Yeah but whats your point? What do you want to discuss?

>>34118789
>Yeah but whats your point?

Modern anti-tank weapons can kill practically any tank on the battlefield.

>What do you want to discuss?

The only reason people think otherwise is videogames and the mistaken belief that what was true in the early years of WW2 (when gun technology lagged far behind armor technology) is still true over half a century later, which it isn't.

>>34118852
But that's not a point of discussion, its just a big verbal poopoo-peepee. Perhaps you'd be better off starting a blog.

>>34118896
>I agree
>but I don't
>what was your point?
>you shouldn't post things that I agree with, because I don't
>what was your point again?

Honestly dude, what the fuck is your problem?

If you're this desperate to have a debate then I suggest you actually make an argument instead of this retarded kiddie shit.

>>34118896
>But that's not a point of discussion

yeah because you agree with him you colossal faggot

why are you trying to argue with something you said you agree with?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (65KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1280x1024px

>>34118707
Ancient anti-human weapons can kill practically any human on the battlefield.

Yet here you are, still fighting today's wars with puny fleshlings.

>>34118784
Isn't most armor either MBTs or APCs? Both are useful both in combined arms tactics as well as our current doctrine. Especially with current military endeavors against opponents with little availability for advanced ATGMs or other peer equivalent anti tank equipment.

>>34118707
Modern ATGMs will kill most tanks, true, but ultimately only a choice few militaries in the world (mainly the US military) is going to have a enough of anti-tank shit at the company level to make a real difference. Everyone else might be able to knock out 2-3 in one sitting, but then they're going to take the Nike Express off the line once Mr. Dead Tank's friends start showing up. Take the tank run into Baghdad, for example. I think only one tank was actually knocked out because of a lucky hit on the exhaust. The Iraqis still couldn't make anything of that "kill" because the sheer volume of fire the rest of the column would bring down on them. So the crew was offloaded and transferred, and the tank itself demoed. Ultimately, knocking it out did nothing to stop Baghdad from falling.

Basically nobody on the planet can stop a US mechanized charge at the moment, ATGMs or not.
And Israel got fucked up by farmers with Norinco crap because IDF is a meme army with the Memekava as its MBT.

>>34118927
>The sky is blue
>Okay, point?
>The sky is blue, it's the first line of my post.
>Yeah, so?
>Dude, what the fuck is your problem?
I guess what I getting at is this is a pointless thread. You've made an assertion, though not a remotely insightful one, but what do you actually want to talk about pertaining to it? Were you just hoping for some "hurr durr those retarded CoDfags think tanks are invincible" circlejerk?

none of this shit matters when it accurately shoots big shit at you while running 60+ mph, followed by twenty of its friends also shooting big shit while running 60+ mph, and they call indirect fire on you to make sure youre fucking fucked.

>>34118707
Yes, any modern tank that is worth its price can take an ATGM "to the face".
No, tanks have never been an unstoppable force of destruction that can't be killed.

modern bullets can kill practically any soldier on the battlefield.

op is a fag.

File: 1491264878266.png (123KB, 473x348px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 473x348px

>when the dutch buy your tanks and paint them orange

>>34118957
>And Israel got fucked up by farmers with Norinco crap because IDF is a meme army with the Memekava as its MBT.


Hezbollah's AT arsenal is nothing to laugh at.

>>34119120
>when you sell your tanks to everyone, then invade them and grab the shit your armed forces are already familiar with back for free

>>34118707
>Cue the hordes of morons claiming that modern tanks can take ATGM's to the face.

They can, don't come crying to us about it.

>Modern anti-tank weapons can kill practically any tank on the battlefield.

Said every war for the last half century.

>>34118707
Where have you been for the past 10 years? That's literally post 2006 Leb war memeing. Since then the cutting edge has changed, and the last war in Gaza most definitely showed that tanks with APS are survivable against the most modern AT threats.
In addition, the introduction of MPHE rounds into Western arsenals and slew-to-cue fire location systems on the tanks means that long range SACLOS shots are now suicide for the firing team.
With the above considered, the KE threat has most definitely returned to beingthe primary means of destroying enemy tanks, which means the platform to carry it, AKA tanks, are not obsolete.

>>34118707
your post is 10 years too late. we moved past that, tanks are now stronger than ever.

>>34118750
So what? Most rifles can penetrate plate carriers, should we get rid of armor for infantry?

Just because tanks have a counter doesn't mean they aren't useful or don't have a proper battlefield role. You are also willfully ignoring the factor of combined arms operations and proper support for tank operations. I assume you're basing your ignorant opinion on liveleak videos from Ukraine and Syria where you have isolated tanks getting destroyed.

File: 91c6f5e6454cfc1dcb32bba2385e75c5d680b9d8017a483b897f129938dec6cd.png (107KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 300x300px

>>34118957
Anti-semite!

File: 23141243214312.jpg (100KB, 680x393px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 680x393px

Modern anti tank guns can kill practically any tank on the battlefield.

The only reason people think otherwise is tabletop war games and the mistaken belief that what was true in the great war is still true over twenty years later, which it isn't.

Cue the hordes of morons claiming that modern tanks can take APCR to the face.

>>34118707

And ATGM that can destroy them reliably also happen to cost as much as the tank themselves, usually even more when used against the T-55 and older models which are 9/10 what end up actually eating the missiles. You're forced to waste money in order to destroy them, which makes them a useful investment to have.

have you ever tried shooting a tank before? no? then shut the fuck up? you think anti tank weapons are going to be implemented in the time frame that a tank would be loading rounds and firing into your buttcheeks you are clearly retarded. you think ATGMs are just pre-loaded and calibrated during a first encounter with a tank? have you ever had one shoot out a dry ice fog for stealth? have you ever seen one dig its way through your bunker? you don't know real war.

>>34118784
The armor is to resist everything else.

>>34118707
Why is that tank orange? Are they fighting deer or something?

>>34118968
This.

Do you have autism, OP?

>>34121384
Kek

>>34121384
the dutch are fucking weird

>>34120968
>kinda hard on the crews though. . .

T-55 is WWII technology. Not sure what older technology is in service let alone running outside of Bovington etc.

If memory serves me correctly from about a billion years ago in the Army, HEDP Mk 19 ammo has 50mm of RHA pen supposedly, so if you can get plunging fire on one, a Mk 19 can fuck up a T-55 through the turret top/hull top. Dumping a can of 40mm HEDP on a tank can't possibly be good for anyone inside it.