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?

[FizzyElf]

DevilDaRebel님이 먼저 게시:

FizzyElf님이 먼저 게시:

Okay who the hell told you no mans land was the made up of the trench lines? please slap them on the back of the head.

I'm not even going to entertain the rest, but are you having trouble comprehending what is being said? Your post barely even makes sense, "was the made up of the trench lines?" Huh?

It's clearly stating that no man land is in between two trench systems. Not that No man Land is "made up of trenches."

-Coleman, Julie (2008). A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-954937-0. Maybe you should slap your own head for incompetent comprehension?

That's what ulzgoroth and I said and you argued against it and then quote someone else who is saying the same thing that we are saying.

[HansGruber]

Tanks aren't obsolete.

You'll see better APS and top attack APS soon enough.

And then they'll start making armor plated missiles or some crap.

[DevilDawgPryde]

When a $10k-100k suicide drone, can take out a 2 million dollar TANK. Yeah, they're going obsolete. Russians anti ship missile defenses are a joke too. How do you lose the flagship named after your capitol to a Harpoonski?

[Top Goy]

DevilDawgPryde님이 먼저 게시:

When a $10k-100k suicide drone, can take out a 2 million dollar TANK. Yeah, they're going obsolete. Russians anti ship missile defenses are a joke too. How do you lose the flagship named after your capitol to a Harpoonski?

No, they are not obselete. Also, i didnt see any results of americas suicide drones yet, all i see is how they are sending em into ukraine. You internet military general of course know if their missile systems are a joke, if tanks are obselete etc. cope harder bot

[DevilDaRebel]

FizzyElf님이 먼저 게시:

DevilDaRebel님이 먼저 게시:

I'm not even going to entertain the rest, but are you having trouble comprehending what is being said? Your post barely even makes sense, "was the made up of the trench lines?" Huh?

It's clearly stating that no man land is in between two trench systems. Not that No man Land is "made up of trenches."

-Coleman, Julie (2008). A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-954937-0. Maybe you should slap your own head for incompetent comprehension?

That's what ulzgoroth and I said and you argued against it and then quote someone else who is saying the same thing that we are saying.

No, what you and the other are saying is just your failed interpretation of my comments due to poor comprehension.

[JoeShmoe]

It will evolve just like everything else, and its already been doing so for the past few decades. You see more of a shift to light vehicle variants compared to heavier mbt. Armoured squads are also shifting to be less centralized around the mbt and more toward specialized roles. Some countries are quicker than others.

APS and reactive armor are still quite effective, even on the older generations you see deployed, and again are still evolving.

If you look at whats being deployed in conflict areas right now its mainly old junk that should have been out of service long ago, with very little countermeasures. Its probably on purpose that those vehicles are being used.. to get rid of them. The t72 boneyard is massive, and its probably obvious that most of them arent even outfitted with any aps system on an old mbt, when new models were being deployed/produced when the arena/shrota systems were being implemented.

If you look at t80/t90 losses in comparison they are very low, although we dont truly know how many are even deployed. Only around 15 t90's have been lost and some of those were outright abandoned rather than destroyed.

What would those losses look like with an even more modern APS/reactive armor system that the west deploys? I dont think the tank is dead by any means, but I do think we will see a shift to more specialized lighter vehicles.

[SexyAwesome]

I don't think we are seeing a full picture. More like propoganda from all sides . War itself should be obsolete . All these hatred and lies. Makes me sick. I have friends in all of these countries and it really painfull to watch somebody speculate on blood . The world is crazy place indeed.

[SteelWolf45]

SexyAwesome님이 먼저 게시:

I don't think we are seeing a full picture. More like propoganda from all sides . War itself should be obsolete . All these hatred and lies. Makes me sick. I have friends in all of these countries and it really painfull to watch somebody speculate on blood . The world is crazy place indeed.

This is the true answer (with a bit of an addition). Tanks aren't obsolete, but they should be. Tanks should be obsolete because war should be obsolete (keep that war ♥♥♥♥ in video games).

[Sir Loin]

tanks occupy ground, planes/drones/cruise missiles cannot. Tanks exist to support infantry to advance and hold ground. Maybe the lesson is that they do not need to be made 'better', more just exist to fill their role adequately. For a long time tanks have been made 'better' through expensive systems that may not really be worth it. From quantity to quality. Once a tank is costing considerably more than the systems used to destroy them as we see now, the bells and whistles may not be worth the investment. Ground armour will continue to have a huge support role for infantry.

[-NODER-_Novastorm_]

working alone yes tanks are obsololete, working along with infantry and air support tanks are good.
Another thing is cities, on cities tanks are obosolete.

[Blakk7]

Yes tanks are obsolete when an inept, old rotted to the core military like the russian federation thinks this is still WW2. NATO would make these old russian crates they call tanks obsolete very quickly.

[Captainn]

0.87 km away from your location님이 먼저 게시:

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

Don't forget about the lack of unit cohesion: I've seen a lot of solo tanks getting rekt in conflict footage. Stick with your battle buddy, russiabros.

[CPT. Doc]

A good amount of this comes down to Russia doing the things that they have to in order to protect their tanks. These are some basic things in which have been understood for a really long time, they are doing things that they wouldn't have done in late WWII. I've seen videos of Russian tanks operating without infantry which is a big no no.

Take note that Ukraine has increased their tank numbers using captured Russian tanks and they are the ones killing them. So if they are using them and increasing their numbers then they certain don't think that tanks are obsolete.

[Hotline]

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

good video

[Top Goy]

Blakk7님이 먼저 게시:

Yes tanks are obsolete when an inept, old rotted to the core military like the russian federation thinks this is still WW2. NATO would make these old russian crates they call tanks obsolete very quickly.

Aha Nato, the NATO that fled afgahnistan, or the Leopard tanks that got ♥♥♥♥♥♥ in Syria? Cope harder, you arent the strongest, so you can forget about it