What's the point of spending money on tanks anymore?
That's a shit tank, Anon.
Just out of pure spite for your existence.
Clearly blow out panels. You can see the crew is alright.
You can kill an infantryman with a bullet.
We still have those too.
because op is always a faggot.
>>29454733
You can sink a battleship with a bomb
We don't have those anymore
>>29454680
What else are we gonna fight proxie wars with m8?
>>29454753
>>29454680
>>29454763
I wonder if drone warfare will evolve sort of like how WW1 military aviation did.
At first they are just for scouting/Intel gathering, then they get bombs, then maybe in the future drones will be armed with A2A missiles to shoot down other drones.
>>29454680
nice fake video anon, everyone knows missiles dont move that slow in real life
>>29454803
>>29454680
are these guided munitions or just lucky as fuck rpg potshots?
>>29454866
>drone warfare will be a war thunder match
:/
>>29454962
guided. Likely AT missiles
>>29454962
Probably TOW launchers. Lots of them made their way into Syria due to the US government providing weapons to "moderate" rebels
>>29454680
To be fair I don't think anyone spent a dime on that particular tank since 1961.
>>29454887
Thats a tow missile. Many have a speed of 300m/s. This doesn't look to far off from that seeing as that's easily over a 1000m shot.
>>29455037
>mfw i was trying to bait people and ended up learning something rather interesting instead
>>29454680
>>29455014
>>29455037
Libya, and it's a konkurs
>>29455030
Wat
>>29454680
we need to start funding mechs the size of tanks
>agility and maneuverability of an infranty-man
>firepower of a tank
super giant mechs are unrealistic without shields and aimbot with long range, but tank-sized mechs or smaller are the next stage
>>29454680
You can nuke a Japanese city with a nuke.
Hiroshima is still there
>>29455066
Hrm, i figured it was russian, though i thought it was a Kornet.
I can't keep track of who's supplying who, but it seems like Russia is the usual bet in the middle east.
>>29455078
We've had this thread a million times, mechs are almost always worse than tanks because of their weak joints, and the fact that their weight, being put into a much smaller area on the ground if they had legs, would mean they'd sink and get stuck anywhere they'd go.
>>29455254
New advancement in lighter materials bruv
>>29455304
at that point they we might as well invent tanks that fly in the air OH WAIT
>>29455254
large feet to account for the weight like snow shoes
make bigger joints
>>29455219
Depends on the type of missile. Lots of older TOWs from Saudi/Jordanian stocks made their way to the rebels, then there's some Chinese HJ-8s and other Soviet-Russian atgms that are either captures or supplied from some other party.
>>29455304
We will make tanks that will be better than mechs in every way from these new materials.
>>29455388
tanks are very poor at maneuverability and are very large targets
mechs could equip artillery, large scaled automatic weapons/shotguns, etc. and be have the maneuverability of a human.
>>29454680
That tank cost less than the rocket used to destroy it; net positive.
>>29455449
You can't just scale something up and expect it to work the same. Mechs that move like a human would be terrible for combat because the legs would be such a weak point. Plus they are way more complicated than any modern tank is
>>29455388
the addition of arms and hands to an armored vehicle make it better than a tank and give it more options
>drop in a mech
>picks up a car and uses it as a shield
>>29455074
He means it's an ancient tank.
>>29455485
>legs would be such a weak point
yes, just like treads are a huge weak point for tanks. Everything has weak points.
Everything.
> Plus they are way more complicated than any modern tank is
and modern jet fighters are more complicated than biplanes
>>29455074
lmao why do russians even try
>>29455496
Legs can't distribute weight as evenly as treads can. Any heavily armed or armored Mech would have serious problems with sinking into mud, snow, etc.
>and modern jet fighters are more complicated than biplanes
It's worth it because jets have a clear benefit over biplanes. Pretty much anything a mech could do on the battlefield a tracked/wheeled vehicle could do better.
Not even taking into account the increase in cost and more intensive maintenance a mech would require
>>29455562
then make wider feet like snow shoes
>>29454680
War. Is hell.
>>29455577
That would add more weight and make a mech less maneuverable, negating any possible benefit of giving them legs.
>>29455074
Can someone baby me on this diagram?
>>29455577
then you're just making a retarded QWOP tier tank
>>29455602
I think you have this idea that a mech is supposed to be absolutely huge and towering
I'm talking like 15 feet tall and not as heavily armored as a tank (which is only armored as it is because it's such a slow and huge target in the first place)
just give it wider feet and make it weigh less. It can now go where tanks can't
>>29455623
A 10-12 foot mech would be great for squad support, it could carry sensors and function as a foot soldier awacs+be a great big small arms shield with suppression and defilade capabilities.
I don't think they'll take the place of artillery or tanks, but supplement the gap between soldier and armour.
Small missiles are replacing a lot of canons and shells these days too, I don't see it being too far out of the realm of possibilities to have a walker with a half dozen missiles, and squad support weapons and counter measures.
>>29454763
Drone tanks?
Do you have any idea how much weight you're dealing with? I operate heavy equipment every day. A tank weights 62 metric tons, and distributes that weight over very wide tracks.
A mech would need feet nearly the size of tank tracks just to keep from sinking. At that point, why not just build a tank?
There is very little to be gained tactically with a bipedal position. A tank can do everything a mech can do better pretty much.
>>29455667
You're basically talking about an exosuit, not a mech.
>>29455078
>A suit you just wear.
You mean once I pay off my school loans I get to sand blast a rusty hood
>>29455486
>>picks up a car and uses it as a shield
A shield from what? Small arms? What's the point in it if it can't take small arms fire? APFSDS? A car won't do shit against it.
Mechs are retarded. Deal with it.
>>29454680
>>29454803
More?
>>29455715
There's no carved in stone distinction. But you get my gist.
>>29454749
>You can sink a battleship with a bomb
This is not the reason we stopped using battleships, retard.
Any ship can be sunk with a bomb. We stopped using battleships because their armament was superseded by aircraft and missiles.
>>29454763
You mean drones, the things that have like a 6% success rate?
>>29454680
>pulling her top off by surprise
>>29456483
>>29456567
Wait, you actually think Tanks haven't been superseded in their armament as heavy support to the Infantry?
>>29454680
Because they're cool and kill stuff.
>>29456728
So, if I was the crew of the tank, I'd literally beat that commander to death for bailing. What a cunt, I'd refuse to work under a man who'd save his own skin over dying with me.
>can use modern materials to design incredible new mobile armor
>want to design it based on the incredibly inefficient human body
you guys are fucking idiots
>>29454680
This is not much different from the situation in the fourties. Tanks could be destroyed by anti tank guns at that time too. And the anti tank guns had the same problems, less mobile than tanks, shooting gave away the position, and could only be used effectively at a defence position.
Guderian overcame the defensive anti tank gun emplacement by using LOTS of tanks at the break through, then using them at fighting routing enemies. Tanks are meant for movement, if you want to use them effectively, use them that way.
The problem today, is arabs using the tanks in the same stupid way as the French used theirs in 1940.
Most of these atgm positions could be found by using scouts effectively, and then smash it with artillery. Some will always avoid detection, and these will fuck up the tanks. This is why any armored assault should have a group of tanks, yes, one tank might still get fucked.
>>29455667
you want something that supplements the gap between infantry and mbt, bring in tankettes. The germans still use them. Small target, fast, can withstand small arms fire, and can pack enough punch to knock out other armored vehicles.
And with a periscope, you can still have low profile, and good situational awareness.
>>29457140
hopefully he got blasted with rocks for bailing on the hillside, the prick.
>>29457155
most biological forms are inefficient. tanks dont have much of a use in the style of warfare being held right now.
>>29454680
We spend money on tanks for the same reason we spend money on bombers.
The public understands "bomber" more easily than "strike fighter"
>>29454724
>in soviet russia, turret is blowout panel
>>29454866
It's coming. The U.S. is planning to convert a bunch of older F-18s and F-16s sitting in storage at Davis Mothan into drones.
>>29458000
Soviets never thought of the tank as the smallest unit.
The Platoon of five tanks was the smallest unit.
So, in a way, yes, a single tank was a blowout panel for the rest of the platoon.
>>29458833
A Soviet Tank Platoon is 4 tanks actually.
>>29455074
>T-80B, T-80BV and T-72B got the same kind of turret armor
>Also has the image of a T-80U turret to represent said turrets.
>>29455066
If you use it to shoot a giraffe does it become a Konkurs Bad Fur Day?
>>29459396
fuck you carlos
>>29455254
No anon
I don't think you understand.
The future must be made to be ridiculous.
Walking tanks with a surface area equivalent to a treadless Abrams on each foot would be ok. But that's practical, and the future we dream about should have something impractical for once.
I want super weapons.
>new walking tank design
>a millipede that works like a walking armored train
You can't tell me it won't be effective
>1-5 miles long
>a football field wide at least
>powered by numerous nuclear reactors
>active protection lasers
>12 inch thick chobum armor sheathing into each other like a real millipede
>more armored near the head, as it will be used as a siege engine
>front is bristling with 50 cals, 20mm cannon, 30mm brrt, 37mm brrt, and 40mm quad mounts
>able to drop a ramp and allow troops to disembark covered by the suppression in the front
>4 auto loading turrets like large Abrams carrying 150mm high velocity guns for direct fire
>second massive sheath carries 76mm and 5 inch dual purpose guns as well as the first massive protection laser
>behind that are 3 quad turret 16 inch guns with super firing quad 18 inch guns behind them for both direct and indirect fire
>behind that is a massive vls cell and the second massive laser
>queue 105mm auto loading howitzers capable of firing at 40rpm for strictly indirect fire
>behind them are 203mm guns doing the same thing
>repeat vls cell and laser for the next section
>finally we come to auto loading Gustav and Dora with 4 gerats in front of them for indirect fire
>last part is the ass which is the same as the front but not as heavily armored
Also
>each cell has 5 .50 cals, 2 40mm single mounts and a 150mm high velocity cannon on each side for protection
Tell me it wouldn't work.
>protip
>you can't
>>29454680
On tanks without APS, like Abrams and Leopard tanks? Not much.
>>29455304
>>29455367
It's still just silly.
Blow a leg off a mech what have you got?
Something lying on its side uselessly only able to fire in one direction for the rest of fight.
Blow a tread off a tank what have you got?
A heavily armed pillbox.
>>29459531
I forgot the most important part
>paint it like a real centipede
>actually fit massive eyes in the front that move a bit side to side with the head to fuck with people
>and of course the antennae and the mandible looking things
The last 2 things do absolutely nothing, but if you're going to make a giant walking fuckoff bug tank you better go the distance.
The only thing it would be susceptible to is nuclear IED's. (Weakness to raid optionally as a plot device)
>be osean
>Belka is up to some shit again
>reports of a giant superweapon sieging cities
>you dig in and prepare to hold your position
>giant fucking millipede is seen over the horizon
>it seems to never end
>it goes broadside and blockades a 5 mile stretch along the outside of the city
>you swear those massive artillery are pointing directly at you
>yfw
>>29459611
>blow a leg off the millipede tank
>nothing
>set up a nuclear IED
>it detonates and manages to knock out 3/4 of its legs
>you begin cheering as you've felled the invincible siege machine
>you prepare to assault
>the rest of the legs fall off
>it starts slithering like a snake instead
>yfw you're out in the open when it starts moving and firing again
Also
>captcha says pick fish
>third fish looks like a nuke hit it, completely unrecognizable
>>29455078
Only size of mecha that is actually real possibility is bit bigger than a man. Pretty much infantry man armed with 20mm autocannon. Basically a plus sized power armor meant for carrying heavy weapons for infantry in urban combat.
Walking is seriously inefficient mode of traction for a machine and ground pressure problems are massive.
>>29459766
>nuclear IED
>nuke hit it
Yes
>>29459531
>imagining an arms race with gigantic nuclear millipedes
>imagining being a soldier against one
>>29457140
That's not how this works.
Likely the only reason they survived at all is because he panicked and bailed, probably yelling something about a missile. So the driver slams reverse.
"Going down with the ship" is a stupid idea that gets good men killed for an ideal. Ideals are retarded, the only thing that matters in life is living or dying. If I have to die to save lives then so be it, but if dying just adds another death to the figure and preserves some ridiculous notion about "honor" what good is it? I'd much rather have a buddy survive than die with me, someone needs to comfort my mom and who better than a close friend?
>>29460201
Like I said, if I was in that crew, I'd beat that man to an inch of his life. Fuck him.
>>29460557
Why though? If you are fucked anyway, but one of your comrades have a chance to survive wouldn't you want him to take it?
We must build a better tank!
>>29460594
This is getting interesting
>>29457311
>most biological form are a inefficient
You won't do better. Robotics have been following biology for a reason.
>>29458000
>ckya
>>29457155
>incredibly inefficient human body
wat
the human body is one of the apex biological endurance machines on the planet. Capable of literally walking/running other biological machines to internal system failure from overheating
the human body is one of the few biological machines even capable of accurately throwing objects
the human body can traverse all available types of terrain on the planet, from ice to water to mud to sand, to literally vertical rock faces
our internal cooling system is by far the most efficient in the natural world
and all of that wrapped up in a package with near universal 50 year + life span? I mean what are you comparing us against that makes you feel we are "incredibly inefficient"?
being able to create a near-man-sized "mech" or power suit or whatever, that had the same level of mobility/agility, would be a revolution in warfare.
