>Is the era of tank warfare over/is the tank becoming obsolete?
>Will we ever see tank battles with mutiple tanks faces off against each other again?
>What is your favorite tank battle in history?
>What are your favorite tank(s) in history?
>Who are the coolest or your favorite "tank aces" in history?
>Do you have any suggested books or films concerning tank warfare that are worth checking out?
Since helicopters and ATGMs came onto the scene the death of the tank has been predicted, it has not happened yet.
>What are your favorite tank(s) in history?
France's S35, it was always a nice little tank I can appreciate & I'd like to say the Tiger II even though it was a mess to fix if it were to break down on the field.
>>981611
Well to be fair there haven't been any HUGE protracted armor battles since WW2.
Even in desert storm the Iraqis got their shit kicked by waves of TOWs from Apaches even before they met one American tank.
Tanks won't go away, they'll just be unmanned and probably lighter armored. Land mobile drones.
>>981619
Weren't there some tank battles during some of Israel's wars with its neighbors?
>>981637
Well yeah, and tank warfare in Vietnam and Korea. But I'm talking about superpower vs. superpower slugfest. Kind of like how WW2 invalidated battleships
>>981619
Pretty much mounted cannons on treads. Guess that insures the role of the tank, but it's overall role is quite diminished when you include strategic airpower, or total battlefield control.
>>981648
Well there hasn't really been a direct war between superpowers for a long time
>>981648
Big enough for Israel to have a tank ace, with at least 20 kills. And possibly as high as 40. That's pretty impressive considering the scale of the Yom Kipur War.
>>981669
Well. Yeah. That's what i said here.
>>981619
Regardless, the Tiger was always a sexy tank.
Are there any good books about tank warfare in WWII? Or any decent movies based in tank warfare? Aside from Fury.
>>981679
But there have been significant armoured battles, just not between first rate powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chawinda
>>981600
No, the era of the tank may be over, but tanks will never be obsolete.
I quite like armored warfare. From the British Mk1 to the modern Abrams and it's counterparts, the history of armored warfare will never cease to amaze me.
Tank aces? There's scant few of them recorded, and everyone will say "Michael Wittman". Even though the Soviets and Americans did have their own. Like Sgt Lafeyette-Pool.
As for recommended reading material, well, the only things I can suggest is reading Liddell-hart and Guderian for starters, then Dmitry Loza's recollections for the Soviet opinion on tanks.
>>981692
Haha oh wow. You know who won that day? The American military industrial complex.
So my point is that was a tank on tank battle. Since then the developments in PGMs, missiles and guidance of all sorts has made the task of hitting a tank trivial. What we need to really test the gaul of the modern MBT is a protracted war in which the effectiveness can be measured over a long period of time, not just a couple one off events. For example some tacticians will look back on said conflict and go "wow look how many tanks we lost to X, can tanks be adapted to X? or has X invalidated the tank as a useful war weapon?"
So the tank as a manned weapon in massive tank battles is dead, the fighter aircraft in actual dogfights is dead, the battleship and surface warfare ship-to-ship battles are dead or dying.
What is next? All of the cool machines of war are becoming obsolete, being overtaken by drones or simply attacking from miles away. Is infantry now the only "real" close-in warfare that is still left for humans to fight?
>>981747
Sadly no. Squishys are the worst thing to have on the ground.
I could imagine a colonel getting a report "sir, they've taken the whole village"
"alright, welp lets call a tactical ballistic missile in on the place and call it a day."
>>981767
In what way would the Iraqis be able to destroy American armor so bad that the Americans would abandon the tank?
>>981754
What I mean is that infantry is the only job where you get to face off against an enemy of the same type. They will dissipate eventually too. But at least infantry firefights are still common and regular. There are no more real tank vs tank battles. Air battles are all from beyond visual range and not dogfights. Warships don't shoot at each other within sight if at all anymore.
What is the next evolution of military weapons/machinery for the soldier? Is it all eventually just going to be robots and drones with no one actively participating in the warzone? There's no stakes in that. Which means it's not particularly interesting. Maybe space will change things sometime in the far future.
>>981769
Shots to the rear or side.
Side of the turret would likely set off ammo stowage.
A few tanks WERE lost to iraqi tanks, it was just rare because American armor had almost every advantage in every fight.
Do you think tanks would still be deployed against each other in mass numbers if, say, one of the US, China or Russia went to actual war with one another? Or if NK and SK finally went back to full warfare? Or India and Pakistan? Or Japan and China?
>>981819
only as a last resort if a new world war stretches for more time than planned.
The thing abut WW3 is that the participants wont be capable of maintaining a production line once the first missile starts flying. While WW2 was won by having a bigger industrial capacity, in WW3 that will be irrelevant since the complexity of modern weapons require a far too complex line of production that its very easy to destroy with modern technology. (even though the US has taken very precaution possible to avoid this). In other words you will fight only with what you have at the start of the war.
So, the only scenario where a tank vs tank would be deployed against each other is if everything else is already destroyed.
>>981819
Yes. There isn't a thing in the world that can check the advance of an armored division without meeting it on the ground, or complete, 100% air superiority destroying logistics.
>>981862
There are already more tanks than qualified crews just in the US.
Europeans will run out of armor fast.
America, russia, and china will not. America in particular will be fielding current gen armor for years.
>>981867
>>There are already more tanks than qualified crews just in the US.
Yes, that why i said it was possible only as a last resort. Its a real possibility that countries will run out of air vehicles before they run out of armor, so if that happens we will see massive land battles once again.
Tanks are probably never going to be absolute, but they're going to undergo some serious changes as soon as the first war between two major superpowers with top of the line equipment happens.
Which is probably not in my lifetime.
/his/, give me a decent explanation of current armored doctrine, and it's differences in the different militaries of the world.
I know a decent bit about tanks in the WWII-Vietnam era, but almost nothing about what's currently being fielded.
After watching Gurls und Panzer, I need more tanks.
What's the best tank focused media out there? Preferably based on old tanks.
>>981780
>no stakes
Getting blown up by a robot sounds pretty fucking high stakes to me
Besides it's stupid to think war will just be 100% robots milling about on 'battlefields'
>>981600
>Is the era of tank warfare over/is the tank becoming obsolete?
That's pretty much impossible. They're just too damn useful. The only day that tanks are obsolete is when there is no more war.
A tank in the hands of people who know how to use it is as dangerous as ever.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/13/meet-the-beast-the-little-iraqi-tank-that-could/
![Initial D - 4th Stage - 08 - Fateful Battle of the FDs.mkv_snapshot_23.45_[2016.04.12_16.56.35].png](https://i.imgur.com/FvaMx5e.png "Initial D - 4th Stage - 08 - Fateful Battle of the FDs.mkv_snapshot_23.45_[2016.04.12_16.56.35].png")
Can tanks into DORIFTO like in GuP?
>>982071
[muffled eurobeat playing in the distance]
>>981982
World of tanks is your best bet if you want to play tanks. Almost all of the tanks in that are WW2 era, but the community is pretty toxic. For modern tanks, you can try Armored Warfare. It's pretty new but it's got a good thing going for it
>>982092
>World of tanks is your best bet if you want to play tanks. Almost all of the tanks in that are WW2 era, but the community is pretty toxic. For modern tanks, you can try Armored Warfare. It's pretty new but it's got a good thing going for it
All this pleb taste, wew.
Otto Carius. He died recently
>>982092
I don't mean necessarily playing tanks, just any good media about them. Documentaries even.
>>982071
I was wondering this too. How accurate are the representations of the GuP tanks?
KV-2 a best.
They'll never become obsolete. Whenever you'll need infantry, you'll need tanks.
>>982092
Well i don't think so, it's extremely arcade and unrealistic, even if the models are nice. The community like you say is just the worst. AW is a direct copy paste of WoW but reskinned with modern tanks.
Warthunder tanks is better.
>>982092
I don't like how arcadey it it, it's like that jap cartoon that people on /tg/ are mad about where the girls have WWII tank WWE or something, just a best of lineup on either side charging at each other, kinda lame.
>>982395
>"They'll never become obsolete."
>says the person presumably interested in history
>>982395
It'll become obsolete once mobile suits are cheap and mass-produced.
>>982476
Thats just a development of the tank
>>982352
>How accurate are the representations of the GuP tanks?
Not accurate in the slightest, despite what the fans might say.
>>981979
Israeli tanks are highly specialized to fight in a Middle Eastern climate and against the typical weapons that Israel's enemies use, i.e. shitty tanks, mines and IEDs. Most other nations design their tanks as allrounders that can be deployed anywhere. Also, Israeli tanks are built to protect the crew rather than the tank, since their doctrine wants them to keep losses to a minimum.
Russian tanks are much different from most others in that they only have 3 crew members. This means that Russia can quickly deploy lots of tanks with very few personnel for a huge zerg rush in the case of a nuclear WWIII and the like, but on the other hand it makes them bad for drawn-out missions because having more people obviously makes it easier to guard and maintain a tank for extended periods of time.
No idea about other countries, modern tanks are generally very similar to each other. It's mostly just stuff like how the Abrams uses a gas turbine with a ridiculous fuel consumption (but a cool sound) rather than a diesel engine etc.
>>981619
Apache can't fire wire guided missiles you gommel
>>981612
I really like the S35 and the H35. There's something just right about them. They feel like they were well designed and look it. There's just a very wholesome look to them, they don't look crude.
I know they had flaws, but those were flaws that really needed to be found out in actual warfare.
>>982535
The Abrams uses JP-8 for fuel, which is the official fuel for the air force as well. So while it may consume a lot, there is less strain on logistics as there is no need for separate supply chains and storage for a different fuel source.
>>982546
He's probably thinking of the Bradley.
>>982352
>I was wondering this too. How accurate are the representations of the GuP tanks?
The tank loses it's tracks when drifting, so not that inaccurate, whatever anime haters may say.
>>982550
Imagine a fucking helicopter with wires hanging off it. Sound safe?
>>982558
Sounds dangerous.
>>981611
You can't deploy helicopters without air superiority. In a real war tanks will still be pretty important stop these lies.
>>981600
>Is the era of tank warfare over/is the tank becoming obsolete?
Yes goy, spend more sheckels on useless bloated airforce and drones.
Tank won't get outdated in near future. They move at speeds up to maybe 90km/h which in comparison to "tank killers" that is helicopters it's very slow BUT, it can loiter around for much longer. They also carry significantly more(and cheaper) ammo than them. And why am I even talking about it?
Tanks can do basically everything you need on the battleground. From being literal towing vehicles to fire support and as a fast flanking force. That there are some weapons able to deal with them doesn't matter as long as they aren't present everywhere(so for example using M4 Shermans today has little use because every retard with RPG-7 can blow it up without problems). Most importantly they can do it all for hours or days without re-fuelling/re-arming depending on the intensity of the task, which is unlike helicopters or airplanes
Of course there is one big problem with several tanks currently in service - gas turbines.
The gas turbine meme ended up in creating tanks that CAN'T function as a cover for infantry(this was their reason for existence back in WW1 days). Exhaust is horribly hot and blowing it anywhere else but behind the vehicle is even less practical than doing it as we do it already. It also restricts you from making Tank-APC hybrids like modern Merkavas because(again) mounting it in the middle or front of the tank causes a headache with exhaust. All for significantly bigger power than diesel engine of the same size but with roughly the same torque(which basically means that this shit is just as good for powering huge 50t+ tank as diesel engine with less power).
Needless to say - Red Army/Russian Army as in - the first users of gas turbine powered tanks has fit those tanks(T-80) with diesel engines and isn't interested in any new tank with gas turbine. Why have several militaries fallen for that meme, I don't know.
>>981648
>Kind of like how WW2 invalidated battleships
It just proved that you need less of them than most big navies had, but those few are priceless.
>>981648
>Kind of like how WW2 invalidated battleships
Except in WW2 battleships were constantly in service and doing vital tasks.
>>981747
>So the tank as a manned weapon in massive tank battles is dead, the fighter aircraft in actual dogfights is dead, the battleship and surface warfare ship-to-ship battles are dead or dying.
None of those are true.
>>981979
I can write some interesting stuff about Soviet doctrine but I may be spewing BS so bare with me.
The Soviet tanks were mostly meant to be assault weapons, designed and armed to attack heavily fortified locations. Considering the Cold War and the west being defensive it makes sense. Soviet tanks had more HE and HEAT than say, AP ammunition. They were optimally not meant to battle other tanks, that was other specialised units' job(ground attack aircraft, RPG teams etc).
Meanwhile the Western tank doctrine was to basically make heavily armed fortifications and used them as that. They were meant to deal with the huge Soviet armour columns and meet them head on.
This could also explain the performance differences between Soviet tanks and American tanks. One was meant to be in essence assault weapon while the other was meant to be again in essence, tank hunter/destroyer.
It would be nice if /k/ could spill and shed some light on this matter.
>>982535
>It's mostly just stuff like how the Abrams uses a gas turbine with a ridiculous fuel consumption (but a cool sound) rather than a diesel engine etc.
The fuel consumption isn't as much of a problem as advantages gained from using fucking helicopter engine as >>982549 said
There's a lot of enormously hot exhaust that causes hiding behind this tank almost impossible(which lowers the tactical flexibility of it, no matter how will you try to spin it) and most importantly - it doesn't give huge advantage over diesels. It was picked because 1500hp couldn't be realised in diesel engine of its size but when everybody was looking on power, nobody bothered to check torque. Torque is dogshit, 900hp diesels have as much of it as the tank. Now, it isn't a problem in a plane or helicopter where you want the engine to rotate fast, but in a fucking 70 tons big tank that's supposed to climb on hills and shit it simply shows that they've risked issues with overheating, very flammable fuel, hot exhausts for minimally higher top speed on road(thanks to higher RPM).
I think currently the newest versions of Leopard 2 use 1500HP turbo-diesel it's time to refit the Abrams with something like it except US congress prefers to spend money on useless "high tech" gimmicks.
>>982549
Abrams can use almost any type of fuel. This is one of the primary advantages of the Honeywell engine.
The engine is extremely consumptive even in idle, but this problem has been somewhat ameliorated through the use of auxiliary power units.
>>982649
Merkava as an APC is a fucking meme and a shit one at that. putting troops in the hold instead of ammo severely compromises combat effectiveness and is for emergencies only. It is not a purpose built hybrid. They have the Namer for APC duty.
Turbine engine is less for huge power, although it does provide that, and more for fuel flexibility. Abrams is the only tank in service that runs on turbine power exclusively. Many tanks have backup turbines that also act as APUs. Stridsvagen is one. Turbine gives it impressive sprint capabilities.
Jet exhaust is not the only issue with infantry bunching up on tanks. Reactive armour that is installed as prat of the TUSK is dangerous as is the noise and compression of the 120.
Turbine tank engines are not necessarily a meme as they do provide power and smooth acceleration that you can't get from a piston engine. They also provide fuel flexibility which can be clutch as fuck when supply lines start to break. Turbines are great for countries that can support them logistically (expensive to repair/replace/keep fueled) but countries like Russia can't afford this shit so they replace the turbines with cheaper diesel engines.
>>981611
By your logic, this means that helis should be obsolete when pic related came into existence.
>>982092
Warthunder also has a full tanks game, WW2 era as well. I think it has arcade and realistic modes same as the aircraft part.
>>982681
>>982649
>>982071
Kinda
>>981611
>Since bayonets and bullets came onto the scene the death of the infantryman has been predicted, it has not happened yet.
Anyone ever watch that The Chieftain channel on youtube? He gives pretty good looks at WWII tanks
>>981600
with all due respect, you could easily ask the /thg/ threads on /k/ about this. While it is historical, we got a bunch of class A autists there that focus on this topic and could answer better than some of you guys.
>>983640
/thg/ doesn't get posted until Friday though.
>>983651
true. You can always post in advance, we got enough armored aficionados to make up for that. Plus we're bound to have armchair generals that have some detailed info on the matter.
Point being, while it can be historical, the original post that asks if tanks are still useful in this date and age is a little out of context for /his/.
Everything else is good though,i'll admit though, im just being an asshole and cherry picking now that i've read the rest of the OP. Its just that the path the thread has taken is better off in /k/ in my opinion.
>>981767
>2016
>still believing that shit
Are you retarded? Some obsolete t62s and t72s facing M4A1s, Apaches and TOWs? It wasnt even a battle, they were just utterly buttraped.
Posting my countrys pride and joy.
Behold the towering behemoth of corrugated iron known as the Bob Semple. No nation can stand up to New Zealands millitary might.
>>984114
thist thread needs A7V
Renault FT, basically your own personal tank
the whippet
Dude Firefly lmao
>>983743
>its not a battle if one side wins decisively
time for tanks
>>983743
Are you denying that the battle of 73 easting happened, or are you just a retard who doesn't understand what a battle is?
No, tanks aren't becoming obsolete.
Most wars still require lots of people killed and buildings destroyed on the ground. Esp as war is not so much between states, access to antitank weapons will be restricted, making tanks even more useful! Not like ISIS has predator drones.
>>984114
>>984173
Not bad for a world war o-
>Designed and built in 1940
what
>Gunner had to lie on mattress on top of engine
WHAT
>The tanks were constructed without the use of any formal plans or blueprints. Working from an American postcard depicting the conversion of a tractor to a 'tractor-tractor'
Are you fucking serious
>12 feet tall
OH MY GOD MAKE IT STOP
>>982664
soviet tanks were built mainly with offense in mind, that's true enough. western tanks were a bit more balanced, with taller tanks being able to use hull-down more effectively (due to superior gun depression) for defense but they were also required for offense, as the vast majority of cold war tactics were centered around mobile warfare, counterattacks and flanking rather than sitting in a static position.
It must have been absolute hell fighting in one of these things.
>>987173
I see, thanks for the clarification.
So would it be wrong to assume what I said about Soviet tanks vs Western tanks true? That the Western tanks were more oriented towards tank destroyers and this could be the reason for the underperformance of Soviet tanks against their western counterparts?
>>987321
obviously i have no first hand experience but one of the episodes of the rather meh tv show from bbc (our world war? something like that) was about tankers
reminiscent a bit of a submarine, except more fumes and sweat and less pressure
>>987327
soviets expected to kill the majority of western armored forces with indirect fire, but they were perfectly equipped for fighting western tanks. recent underperformance has been due to technological disparity and terrible training. tech disparity due to end of the cold war and due to the tanks in question being export models.
during the cold war the soviets were the ones pushing armored technology forward in most areas.
>>984114
>6x Bren guns and no cannon
>Corrugated metal
>>981600
>Do you have any suggested books or films concerning tank warfare that are worth checking out?
Obviously Achtung -- Panzer! is a must read
>>984305
why couldn't japan into tanks?
>>981747
there literally hasn't been a war between nations with force parity in decades thar required direct air combat or large scale tank warfare though you stupid faggot
>>987531
maybe the operational realities of the theaters they were involved in were not conductive to tank development?
they were roughly on par with everyone else early on, but after the decision to favor the navy the land forces would play second fiddle
then you have the fact that fighting in china never saw the arms race in tanks the same way europe did
and then you have the realities of fighting a disjointed campaign across half an ocean and having to ferry tons of stuff, sometimes to tiny islands
i am literally pulling all of those out of my ass but those all seem reasonable enough... er... reasons
>>986629
fucking kek
>>987548
You're more or less right but there are few issues with this reasoning.
First of all - if they wouldn't be able to get raw resources for making good, "heavy"(medium) tank, they should've pursued the aim of making sensible light tank like M3/M5 Stuart but they've never had anything like it.
In China they saw "sort of" arms race - that is Chinese arming themselves in 1st-gen AT guns like Pak 35/36 or American M3 37mm.
And then you've had design choices that were purely stupid for a country that had more experience with using tanks than almost anybody else.
The point was - Japan, like any country, had limited industrial and intellectual potential. Army got fuck-all of it. They've used field guns from before the WW1 for fucks sake. It was enough in China until Chinese got armed properly, then it started falling apart, it was enough for Pacific until Americans had surplus equipment and British transferred their second-rate stuff that was deemed too poor for European theatre(like Valentine tanks, 2pdr AT guns and M3 Lee) to fight Japanese where it was good enough. Despite this, Japanese didn't reacted in any way to their army being sub-par until late 1944 when they were preparing to defend home isles and even then the involvement was limited to home isles.
>>983561
>since sticks and stones came onto the scene the death of the hoplites has been predicted, it has not happened yet.
My interest in tanks is heavily linked to the historical wargames I play, but in my opinion tanks still have a role in the modern battlefield.
They're still highly mobile (while able to use concealment), resilient against most weapons and carry some very nasty firepower.
Used properly, they can be the hammer in an attack.
It's just that no first-world country is currently facing the kind of conflict where you'd need that battlefield role.
Historically, I've always liked looking at typically-unappreciated designs.
Pic related for that.
>>988951
What scale?
>>981681
>Aside from Fury.
The best scenes in Fury were deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh2Q6DdEvwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk-xMr56ccY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bYVAdsEngc
>>984114
>>981681
Lebanon is pretty much the industry-standard tank movie at this point.
>inb4 Jews
Something I found recently, first tank comparison I've seen from the war years.
>>981681
The Beast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWbp5hxzXTo
>>987321
tfw no WW1 (other than FT-17s) tanks in WoT
>>989864
15mm, so 1/100.
>>991219
basically all the ww1 tanks had ww2-light-tank tier armor so to speak, about 15mm give or take a couple mm here and there, so yeah most guns and AT rifles could do something
I always liked tanks the most, but could never figure out why. Planes fly and go really fast, and ships have really big guns. So why?
>>981600
RPG and EFP's make tanks no no's. If something worth 30 dollars kill something big 10 billion, 10 billion no feasible.
>>982664
>America didn't use the tank destroyers are supposed to fight tanks doctorine
>>992419
they make things go boom.
>>990763
cool
>>992509
>if bullets cost 5 cents, and an infantryman costs 300,000, nobody will invest in infantrymen
It might have some questionable design choices, but its still my tankfu.
I love the french fcm-2c
a beast of 12 men crew
>>982071
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMEZIFzgrow
>>987321
http://www.firstworldwar.com/diaries/whentankfoughttank.htm
Have a first hand account of a battle.
"Bizzare" comes to mind. Bizarre, and surreal.
ww1 was truly the stuff of nightmares.
>>982681
>There's a lot of enormously hot exhaust that causes hiding behind this tank almost impossible
The exhaust of a gas turbine is harder to see in thermal cameras than diesel exhaust. Read up on emissivity.
>nobody bothered to check torque. Torque is dogshit
The AGT-1500 generates more torque than any MTU diesel.
>very flammable fuel
JP-8, used for logistical commonality, is no more flammable than diesel.
>>982649
>Red Army/Russian Army as in - the first users of gas turbine powered tanks has fit those tanks(T-80) with diesel engines and isn't interested in any new tank with gas turbine
The first country to have a tank with a gas turbine in service was Sweden.
Russia moved away from the T-80 due to UVZ's cronyism.
>>981600
You've been wrong for nearly 100 years, they aren't very good in cities though.
>>982664
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
>>994364
They're excellent in cities, IF the people using them aren't retarded.
Fallujah was retaken with tanks pushing down the streets with a company of infantry on either side clearing buildings and guarding the flanks, and engineers and their vehicles behidn every advance ready to clear obstacles or move damaged machines.
It worked pretty well.
Tanks get a bad rap in cities because Russians are turbonigger levels of retarded, and thought sending armor totally unsupported into a city filled with men who had been trained in the soviet army, and raided arms depots for at weaponry would be a good idea.
>>991092
You obviously don't like tanks if you play WoT
>>984114
why does it look like it's made of legos?
>>994658
Anon, why else would I play a game primarily with tanks.
>>994715
>HP system
you know what I'm trying to say, anon
I'm not even a wehraboo,but goddamn if I could say what my favorite tank of all time was it'd be the Tiger. I don't know why either, it didn't run half the time and could be destroyed quite easily. Maybe it's seeing a behemoth race across the steppes with its roaring engine combined with dozens of other Tigers creating a thunderous droning that can be heard for long distances. And the fear the soldiers facing it must've had when they look ayy it through binoculars only to see the flak cannon aimed at your position.
>>994715
you could be playing SABOW or Steel Beasts instead if you really gave a shit about tanks.
>>990763
S A V A G E
A
V
A
G
E
>>995312
Just not the same anon.
why do we hate autoloaders again?
>>997191
Because they are fun until they break, or until you have to have a break.
When they break your minimalist crew efficiency drops. When they take a break they have additional maintenance but less crewmen to perform it.
As for manless turrets it's total fail, most propositions never consider the possibility of auto-loader breaking neither they think of a way to hand-crank the turret in case the electrical/hydraulic mechanism breaks.
Basically sometimes it's better to have that loader and maybe little lower RoF but retain more utility.
>>997331
So Russians are beng drunk and retarded again when they claim the T14 will be the bestest tank ever?
>>997341
Probably yes.
Also the very important con of unmanned turret is the fact that the commander can't get on top of it and look around, cameras are always worse in this aspect and they can be disabled by some big artillery shell, that won't damage the tank itself but will make the cameras and some of the optics a mess.
Basically it's less versatile solution which has 2 major advantages: it allows for relatively shorter tanks and for protecting the crew better, since you can concentrate the armour around them.
Then again I'm not an oracle, maybe you can do it "right" but I doubt it, the unmanned-hull ideas from 1950's sound more practical than that.
BT-42 finnish assault gun
>>992509
Oh oh I know this one! What is reactive armor
>>997421
Active protection systems too, like Trophy.
>>994948
it's a metatank. it's the most basic idea of tankness in a tank.
there are sexier tanks. their are hipster-er tanks. there are more modern tanks, faster tanks, better armoured tanks, uglier tanks, flimsier tanks, bulkier tanks.
the tiger, however, is the tankiest tank.
>>997460
this is golden
>>997460
>the tiger, however, is the tankiest tank.
Well that is entirely subjective imo the tankiest tank is probably a Abrahams, ior mabey even a t-34
>>997547
the tiger is literally a bunch of squares and oblongs in the shape of a tank.
It is in threads like these that the nu male, limpwristed North American urban millennials of /his/ show themselves to be deficient when compared to /k/ or even /int/ and /tg/
>>997678
But I post on /k/ too.
