Are tanks obsolete?

[Pozieres]

With things like manpads and UAVs slapping soviet tanks/helos around in Ukraine is this the end of the line for the tank and larger weapon platforms? Will cheap UAVs/artillery be the future and if so, will it be represented in WT?

[DevilDaRebel]

Publicado originalmente por Tom:

Publicado originalmente por tonelock9:

Russian tanks are obsolete ahahahah better bring more body bags ivan eh

imagine laughing about people dying, can't wait for you to cry the instant you get threatened

Don't feed em.

[Tom]

Publicado originalmente por DevilDaRebel:

Publicado originalmente por Tom:

imagine laughing about people dying, can't wait for you to cry the instant you get threatened

Don't feed em.

might as well, he can't provide for himself

[ulzgoroth]

Publicado originalmente por DevilDaRebel:

Interesting topic, let's not get it locked. My answer is a fat NO. Tanks were invented in the first place to cross OPEN FIELDS, No man land? Not to be used in CQB where it has no agility.

In fairness, ATGMs, UAVs, and artillery are not weapons that demand confining terrain. (Unlike lighter man-portable anti-tank weapons like AT4 or RPGs.)

Also, tanks were originally invented to cross both no man's land and enemy trenchlines. Even WWII saw infantry AT launchers sufficient to make driving a tank literally through enemy fortifications a really bad idea, of course. (Besides the entrenched/concealed AT guns.) They still do okay in the open fields so long as they're protected from air attack though.

[Wasp]

Publicado originalmente por 0.87 km away from your location:

tanks arent obsolete, its just that russian tanks are being used in city conditions and they arent being used at long range, like they should

Not to mention that they are being sent out mostly on their own without support so they are easily taken out.

[Rose]

Nope they arnt obsolete, Soviet tank tactics however are obsolete


The Way the West and other Western trained armies use tanks is the way

Ie with infantry and ifv/APC support and support of air CAS and CAP
And ofc Heavy fire support such as artillery systems

[biomike]

Publicado originalmente por Rose:

Nope they arnt obsolete, Soviet tank tactics however are obsolete


The Way the West and other Western trained armies use tanks is the way

Ie with infantry and ifv/APC support and support of air CAS and CAP
And ofc Heavy fire support such as artillery systems

It all goes back to what tanks were first made to do, support infantry and in turn the infantry supports them

[Jaes]

For the folks saying "tanks are obsolete."

Honestly surprised no one linked Chieftan's vod on the topic, which is far more comprehensive and coherent than a lot the replies in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8

[Rose]

Publicado originalmente por Porter:

Publicado originalmente por Jaes:

No.

/end thread.

Completely false. This is why the USMC is getting rid of tanks. They are useless and no longer worth using.

No that's not the reason lol

The USMC ditched tanks because they anticipate a Island hoping war with the USMC heading it in the future, the Abrams and Tube artillery is to heavy for this kind of war

So they're now investing in anti ship and long range rocket artillery for said island hoping war

[Rose]

Publicado originalmente por MaDeuce:

Publicado originalmente por Tom:

you do, because sometimes even an heavely armed IFV won't do the Job, a tank is an ace in the sleeve, it isn't good for every situation and isn't the most versatile but is very good at what it can do, having mobile firepower with good armor protection makes for a deadly combo when punching into defenses or counter attacking, tanks absolutely still have their place in modern warfare

Okay. You go on believing that. I don't need to argue it, I know.

Theirs a reason the army is getting a 105mm Light Tank to be attached to infantry and be air transportable, it was undergoing tests with the 82nd Airborne past year

[Tanagram]

idk fam missiles are cheap, dont cost human lives/similar depth of maintenance, and blow the ♥♥♥♥ out of tanks pretty easily. you could just mass cheap but effective boom things that can even be fired off a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cheap ass drone from maybe somewhere high in the sky, its over.

warfare changes. air is king. tanks are a fun relic of the past, like cavalry

[Omega Sirius]

Publicado originalmente por Rose:

Publicado originalmente por Porter:

Completely false. This is why the USMC is getting rid of tanks. They are useless and no longer worth using.

No that's not the reason lol

The USMC ditched tanks because they anticipate a Island hoping war with the USMC heading it in the future, the Abrams and Tube artillery is to heavy for this kind of war

So they're now investing in anti ship and long range rocket artillery for said island hoping war

Nope, that's not why either.

[FizzyElf]

Publicado originalmente por MaDeuce:

Studies from the early 2000s have shown that armored warfare has no place on the modern battlefield, just like hulking battleships. The U.S. Army told Congress that they didn't want or need any more Abrams, and Congress forced them on them any way. Advancements in armor cannot outpace the advancements in munitions, to try to keep up is a complete waste of resources. The main battle tank is a relic, lightly armored and highly mobile vehicles capable of carrying overwhelming fire power are the future.

They didn't want anymore abrams because they wanted to finally get a light tank but no here's 10,000 more abrams

[Rose]

Publicado originalmente por biomike:

Publicado originalmente por Rose:

Nope they arnt obsolete, Soviet tank tactics however are obsolete


The Way the West and other Western trained armies use tanks is the way

Ie with infantry and ifv/APC support and support of air CAS and CAP
And ofc Heavy fire support such as artillery systems

It all goes back to what tanks were first made to do, support infantry and in turn the infantry supports them

Pretty much, tanks need infantry support no matter the century

In modern warfare
The Gulf war showed how well they can do with IFVs/APCs, Air and infantry support

"The tank was originally invented to clear a way for the infantry in the teeth of machine-gun fire. Now it is the infantry who will have to clear a way for the tanks."
Still as true as when it was said

[Rose]

Publicado originalmente por Omega Sirius:

Publicado originalmente por Rose:

No that's not the reason lol

The USMC ditched tanks because they anticipate a Island hoping war with the USMC heading it in the future, the Abrams and Tube artillery is to heavy for this kind of war

So they're now investing in anti ship and long range rocket artillery for said island hoping war

Nope, that's not why either.

I mean that's literally the official report and USMCs reason on why

"A combination of recent concepts and a series of war games, experiments and more than a decade of push to return to naval warfighting led to the force design overhaul expected to take place over the next decade. Those sweeping changes began in 2020 with the divesting of tanks, ­reduction of cannon artillery in favor of ­longer-range missiles and a shakeup of how the infantry is used."

"In return the service will bulk up with long-range rocket artillery and anti-ship missiles, weapons the service thinks will be more useful in island-hopping campaigns in the South Pacific"

The report stated they wish to return to a amphibious force than can assist the navy, they even sited China and south China sea as a future war ground and said "We have sufficient evidence to conclude that this capability [tanks], despite its long and honorable history in the wars of the past, is operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future"

[DevilDaRebel]

Publicado originalmente por ulzgoroth:

Publicado originalmente por DevilDaRebel:

Interesting topic, let's not get it locked. My answer is a fat NO. Tanks were invented in the first place to cross OPEN FIELDS, No man land? Not to be used in CQB where it has no agility.

In fairness, ATGMs, UAVs, and artillery are not weapons that demand confining terrain. (Unlike lighter man-portable anti-tank weapons like AT4 or RPGs.)

Also, tanks were originally invented to cross both no man's land and enemy trenchlines. Even WWII saw infantry AT launchers sufficient to make driving a tank literally through enemy fortifications a really bad idea, of course. (Besides the entrenched/concealed AT guns.) They still do okay in the open fields so long as they're protected from air attack though.

Artillery works best when confined together like in CQB. And yes, when implying no man land that also correlates and includes trenches, as when you cross no man land, numerous trenches await you. Yes, modern combat is mostly just an advanced WW2 field. As modern combat came directly from it, just like you have Infantry with AT in CQB today, so did ww2.

Hence why even in ww2, armored doctrine explicitly recommended for tanks to stay away from CQB like in towns and cities unless accompanied by other forces like infantry.