Tanks

>>34749677
This is most liekly bait, but Ill bite.

Firat off, all combat vehicles are useless alone. Secondy, field artillery takes in best case 5 - 10 minutes to geton target, mortars might be slightly faster. A tank kan get its round on target in about 1,5 seconds after seeing it and is way more accurate at close ranges, so it has its specific role. Also, they are scary and good for taking out your opponents vehicles.

Their value might not be as large in asymetrical warfare, but they can be of use there too.

Tanks still retain certain relevance in COIN operations. While in the end it is the rifleman that needs to clear and hold ground, the tank provides considerable firepower, armor, and psychological effect, like clearing through cities like Fallujah or Tal Afar. Modern technologies like APS or reactive armor could prove to be useful. However there is no be all end all weapon, that is why we have infantry, tanks, planes, ships, whatever, as perhaps even the most modern tanks (unsupported) can be knocked out by a simple but well constructed IED.

>>34749771
Damn Im shit at spelling. I blame that its early in themorning and I havent had any sleep.

File: 558b248c9fdc4eedaa97e3efd8e90995.jpg (243KB, 864x1536px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 864x1536px

>>34749771
OP here, not bait. I admittedly could have worded it more eloquently, but im suffering from the same early morning stupor as you.

>>34749677
>Has the main battle tank run its course?
No. But the US Army has a 40 year old concept on how to run tanks and has no idea what to do with Cavalry.

The Army knows it has problems with Armor. AMPV/FCS is suppose to address this but it like the blind leading the blind. The Army is looking at a return to some sort of improved ACAV like turretless Bradleys or the Israeli Namer. Something like the Namer or Russian Terminator is in order. For the COTS solution I like the idea of the Namer with 3 or 4 CROWS turrets. Of course, the Army will fuck this up with Pentagon Wars style of horse by committee.

>>34749677
>Has the main battle tank run its course?

No. Same with all types of aircraft, infantry, and fire support units. Each has a place in combine arms usage.

>>34749677
inb4 muh monkey models and muh mobility kill

File: 1 (1)_0.jpg (46KB, 700x429px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 700x429px

>>34749966
Speaking of the Namer, earlier this week the Israeli MoD unveiled an unmanned turret upgrade package for the Namer. It has a 30mm gun and fitted with Trophy APS.

>>34749677
>asymmetric warfare
AKA not leveling the area because mah feelings.
No, the tank is still useful it's just sandniggers, they could lose fucking Evangelions to rifle fire.

>>34749677
an incompetent of sub-human browns certainly doesnt help

File: eee.png (1MB, 1128x751px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1128x751px

>>34749677

A mobile 1XXmm rifle is still useful for blowing up things.

File: 1280px-DesertStormMap_v2.svg.png (592KB, 1280x901px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1280x901px

There still isn't really a complete substitute for it. An armoured unit with MBTs can stand up to high intensity combat far better than an IFV weight vehicle in terms of protection, and more 120mm cannon rounds than a lighter vehicle would carry ATGMs. I think British armoured units are flirting with the idea of using the new CT40 armed Ajax heavy tracked reconnaissance vehicles (possibly with a Javelin RWS) to replace a proportion of MBTs, but still, to properly deter the thousands of T-90 and T72-B3 that Russia has, you still need full weight MBTs.

>>34751973
Thank you this is actually a perfect example.

>>34749677
Back in 91, the vast majority of warfighting techniques and ATGMs existed and in large quantities too. Were tanks obsolete then? (Spoiler see >>34751973 they were not obsolete) Whats the difference, because it comes down to how you use them.

In the gulf war, tanks were used by NATO to completely BTFO out of the third largest military in the world. Were they obsolete?

Tanks in Checnya part I were BTFO in large quantities due to them being sent directly into cities to fight, despite them never being design for such action. Thus they experience heavy loses. Were they obsolete?

Tanks in Checnya part II stayed out of the cities and provided mobile fire support to troops entering cities, and proved to be quite effective and experience a lot fewer loses than in the first war. Were tanks obsolete then?

In Syria, tanks are left exposed, silhouetted, or even marched directly into urban combat and just like in Checnya they are BTFO. Are tanks obsolete?

In Ukraine, modern Russian tanks (T-72B3 and T-90) have proven to be extremely effective against the Ukrainian army despite them never entering into urban combat, and only providing fire support to troops engaged in urban settings. Are tanks obsolete?

Short answer no. but running them into a city and hoping for the best sure is.

What the fuck would you replace MBTs with? Anything less would just get fucked up easier and by weapons lighter than top of the line ATGMs while not offering a 120mm fuck you to anything within line of sight.

>>34749677
>(((modern))) MBT
You wanted to say outdated MBT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQA4ecTD8wk

File: 53454.jpg (262KB, 2048x1255px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 2048x1255px

>>34749966
>For the COTS solution I like the idea of the Namer with 3 or 4 CROWS turrets.

File: 451234123.jpg (147KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x848px

>>34751973
>but still, to properly deter the thousands of T-90 and T72-B3 that Russia has, you still need full weight MBTs.
>He thinks 200 worse MBT's in the existence can stop thousands of T-90 and T72-B3

File: 1495223239861.jpg (307KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1920x1080px

I think it all boils down to how these vehicles are being used. I don't think that driving them through urban environment can yield good results. It's pretty spoopy considering the fact that you're driving into a city where you are enveloped in dozens and dozens of windows, and you have no way of covering them. I don't know why they do it.

However, the vehicle thrives in open plains and immensely huge deserts. Truth be told, our Syrian bros just aren't using them wisely. Why? Who knows. Maybe they're just fed up with it all.

>>34752783

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Post

>Tanks are worthless if literally one out of a thousand is defeated
>Replace tanks with vehicles that are taken out on a regular basis
Really don't get this argument.

>>34749677
Not really. APS will save the MBT from irrelevance for the foreseeable future. The next gen of tanks will probably be in the 70+ tons, have a automated turrent, carry some 2k mm equivalent armor and boast some 140mm or higher fuckyoudeliverer with the ability for direct and indirect fire. On top of that add various 360 degree scanners, optics and radars that guide several weapons stations, the APS, MANPADS and heavy ATMs mounts. Basically a fucking tracked fortress.

>>34750202
Also video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMItI3X8Kls&list=PLFEcTnkW1NZKzIK_coqYSdGekiKG13nkh&index=582

>>34752783
Go home Boris, you're drunk again.

File: image13_article_large.jpg (74KB, 610x902px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 610x902px

>tanks aren't good in urban combat

Okay anon.

>>34751973
You'll also need a lot of MBTs, not just a few.

>>34752771
Those unmanned turrets always make me think there'll be worse situational awareness, at least in Western tankers. Russian commanders already ride buttoned up, but it's rare as fuck to see an American commander with the hatch closed. There's nothing quite like full, uninterrupted use of the Mk 1 eyeball and (some) use of hearing.

If you want a sense of what the difference is, sit in the commander's seat of a tank at a local museum, then go home and use "commander view" in a video game. The screen will never be the same.