Tonks are obsolete. They are defeated by ATGM which can't be defended against due to weight restriction. For fire support autocannons are superior to the oversized gun whose only job is killing other tanks.
It should go the way of the battleship. There's no room on the modern battlefield for a lumbering overarmored big-gun platform. It's all about stealth, detection, mobility and range now.
>>30428001
>Tonks
>>30428001
>tonks
Opinion disregarded
>>30428001
Nah mate tanks have fuck-awesome sensors, that autocannon on a Bradley isn't going to pop vehicles (or pink squishies) nearly as far away as the main gun will.
>>30428001
>It should go the way of the battleship.
Become the main motor of future warfare?
>>30428068
>that autocannon on a Bradley isn't going to pop vehicles (or pink squishies) nearly as far away as the main gun will.
autocannons are far superior against soft targets with its high rate of fire.
against hard target ATGM has superior range and the platform can be much smaller and therefore stealthier.
meanwhile a tank lights up on infrared like a christmas cake.
>>30428001
Gliderfag? is that you?
>>30428105
How about you go and pitch your idea to the Pentagon
what about tanks w/ wheels?
(is this less expensive than a regular tank? i don't really know. it should be a little more agile i think)
>>30428001
Spot the faggot who hasn't a clue.
>>30428253
>wheels
>more agile
Oh boy.
>>30428220
oh god, don't remind me
>>30428105
>autocannons are far superior against soft targets with its high rate of fire.
That really ain't true, large low velocity rounds that can airburst would be better
>>30428225
You mean tell the Pentagon about the vehicles they currently use?
>>30428654
Airburst is for infantry.
In 2003 Canada thought tanks were obsolete and planned to replace them with pic related. However experience in Afghanistan led them to buy Leopard 2A6's instead. Tanks are not obsolete even in asymmetrical warfare.
>>30428684
>soft targets
>>30428709
not saying you're wrong but op is talking about a battlefield wherein the combatants aren't towelheads hiding in caves
canadian experience in afghanistan isn't really relevant
Tonks a shit
Artillery a best
prove me wrong faggots
>>30428719
>not saying you're wrong but op is talking about a battlefield wherein the combatants aren't towelheads hiding in caves
Tanks are valuable precisely because they force the enemy to invest in heavy ATGMs. IFVs and similarly-armored vehicles can be knocked out with shoulder-fired, disposable rockets relatively easily.
It doesn't matter that it can't stop a modern ATGM from all aspects, because the point is that it forces the enemy to field larger, heavier, more expensive, more complex, highly specialized weaponry.
>>30428719
killing a tank in proper combined arms with an atgm as infantry is risky as fuck.
why the fuck do people think it's oh look lone tank i'll just shoot it and walk away now. western armies don't fight like towel heads, you've got infantry and other tanks and air and all sorts of bullshit to deal with. your unarmored skin and two legs are at a serious disadvantage. you're not doing it alone, you've got your own combined arms sitting behind you.
>>30428780
>let's make our enemies spend money on expensive ATGMs by buying even more expensive tanks
the other guy is right you know, this only works on towelheads.
>>30428864
>tank advancing
>some weird object is coming to you from that shrub over there
>oh shit
>you die
your precious combined arms wont help you in this scenario
>>30429056
> APS shoots it down
> Turret slews to cue and lights you up with whatever is in the breach
>>30429056
You know active protection is a thing, right?
>Tanks advancing
>Warning starts blaring
>Screen shows gunner where missile is coming from
>THUMP
>Missile shot down, gunner engages source.
>Losses:
>You: 1 contermeasure, 1 MPHE shell.
>Enemy: 1 full ATGM team.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
>>30428253
>Wheeled gun carrier
>Tank
No.
At best it's a TD.
They are more mobile on roads, and get better fuel efficiency, but cannot replace tanks. They are limited to at most ~35 tons, and are generally very bug and lightly armored for their weight.
What is APS and ECM
>>30429135
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure
>>30428001
>there is absolutely no chance of countermeasures working
>air/infantry/artillery can't destroy the ATGM and/or it's crew
>there is always going to be an ATGM that will be in a position to fire on the tank
>there will never be more tanks to support the tank you are attacking with ATGMs
>having a tank that can't be easily destroyed by infantry portable weapons and has an accurate and long ranged cannon isn't a massive advantage
Just because there are videos of ATGM crews in Syria taking out tanks doesn't mean that they're obsolete.
>>30428068
>that autocannon on a Bradley isn't going to pop vehicles
Thats because the autocannon on the Bradley is complete shit, just like the rest of the vehicle. Get a decent 35 - 40mm autcannon and catch up with the rest of the world.
>>30428001
Damn, OP, you should tell all the militaries of the world. They've collectively wasted billions on obsolete systems. They'll need to fire all those generals and people who think they know more than you, too.
>>30429083
>> muh APS
the particle beam fluxer disables the APS
>>30429085
>atgm team is sitting where the atgm is
>APS sensor isn't blinded with a laser system
>>30428001
ATGM teams is shit if the tank sees the team first.
Tanks are shit if the ATGM-team sees you first/have time to prepare.
This debate has been going on ever since the AT-weapons and tank was invented, yet still they both exist.
>>30429166
>>there is absolutely no chance of countermeasures working
no proven exists
>>air/infantry/artillery can't destroy the ATGM and/or it's crew
air/infantry/artillery can't destroy the air/infantry/artillery and/or it's crew
>there is always going to be an ATGM that will be in a position to fire on the tank
the exact same thing can be said for tanks...
>>there will never be more tanks to support the tank you are attacking with ATGMs
there will never be more ATGMs?
>>having a tank that can't be easily destroyed by infantry portable weapons and has an accurate and long ranged cannon isn't a massive advantage
atgm is infantry portable...
> accurate and long ranged cannon isn't a massive advantage
im sure the battleship admiral thought so lol
>>30429192
>everybody does it so it must be the best
history of warfare goes the other way
>>30429200
and what is easier to see? a tank or an atgm platform?
hint: one is bigger than the other
>>30429194
> muh particle beam fluxer
what is this, 2020? Everyone knows it's about the Tesla collider
>>30429049
You don't even know what Combined Arms is. The real scenario is:
> Recon advances
> Recon spots ATGM teams setting up shop.
> ATGMs get blown up by indirect fire or CAS
> Infantry advances to engage surviving teams
> Tanks advance while supported by infantry in case of stragglers
>>30429214
One has Thermals and the other doesn't.
ITT: It is 2000 AD.
>>30429224
In this beautiful perfect world you live in there wouldn't be wars in the first place, anon.
>>30429214
And how do you preform an assult to advance/take terrain with a static ATGM-team?
ATGM-teams is also very vunerable to indirect fire (mortars/artillery)
>>30429199
You need to be next to the launcher to use it on all modern missiles. And most are SACLOS so you need to stay by the launcher until impact to hit.
>Blinded by laser
>What are radars
>>30429199
>laser system
>blinds the APS radar
No.
>>30429225
>His ATGMs don't have thermals
>>30429205
>air/infantry/artillery can't destroy the air/infantry/artillery and/or it's crew
I've never seen a finer case of missing the point. I never said that ATGM's can't effectively kill tanks, I said that that fact doesn't make tanks obsolete, since wars aren't fought in a vacuum.
>>30429245
> Using thermals in a desert
Gee, I sure do love it when the ATGM system overheats and bricks itself.
>>30429251
Is this bait?
>>30429259
> He doesn't know about the Javelin's overheating issues
>>30429235
The "beautiful perfect world" is this one, because not everyone who fights in a war is a towelhead who thinks driving a lone tank in the middle of an open area is a good idea without recon, infantry, and indirect fire support to watch it's ass.
Learn2MilitaryScience.
>>30429251
>He doesn't use Israeli thermals
Has anyone here actually carried an ATGM?
To say that they are man-portable isnt really fair.
To say that ATGMs is the best weapon for every situation is like saying that every rifleman should have a sniper rifle as snipers is more likely to shoot first when they are in position.
>>30429279
Depends on what size of ATGM. Calling a TOW man portable is streching it to the limit, but a Spike SR is very portable.
>>30429288
Man-portable systems like the Spike SR and NLAW is indeed much more portable.
But the infantry will still need to be moved in some form of vehicle. And if you want to be able to fire the ATGM while in the vehicle (as you never know when the enemy appears) you need the weapon to be mounted on the vehicle.
In short, ATGMs are great if you know when and where the enemy is going to be, but pretty bad if you dont.
>>30429308
I agree. ATGMs are the modern equivalent of WWII AT guns.
>>30429311
Completely useless unless they're in a defensive position or mounted on a vehicle
>>30428001
> obsolete
> defeated by ATGM
> autocannons are superior to the oversized gun
You might want to talk to Merkgunner from the /thg/ thread about his summer vacation in Gaza 2 years ago and ask him to tell you how much "tonks" are obsolete.
>>30429237
with artillery and infantry
>>30428253
The Russians tried that several times; wheels suck on a tank.
>>30429263
>this one system has problem therefore the problem is inherent in the field itself
lol
>>30429275
only in your perfect world do you have recon,infantry,tanks,aircraft,satellite,nuke et al. against a lone atgm team
>>30429614
>with artillery
Artillery is shit against tanks when they are in combat (tanks move you know) and you dont want to call that in close to your own troops anyway.
>Infantry
Infantry against tanks? WW2 Poland all over again.
>>30429614
Also, are you expecting that infantry to walk into battle against tanks?
>>30428001
Infantry is obsolete. They are defeated by rifles which can't be defended against due to weight restriction. For fire support aircraft are superior to the handheld gun whose only job is killing other people.
It should go the way of the battleship. There's no room on the modern battlefield for a slow, weak small-gun platform. It's all about stealth, detection, mobility and range now.
>>30429654
Only in your perfect world do you have a single ATGM team against one compleatly unsupported tank.
Once that ATGM goes of a tank will swing his turret around and send a HE round at the small smoke cloud you just created.
>>30429663
>sit outside tank gun range
>turn on thermal
>tanks light up
>blast it
>advance with mechanised infantry
>>30429668
>what is mechanised infantry
holy fuck you are retarded
>>30429680
>magical tank with perfect SA
your perfect world strikes again!!!
>>30429654
>a lone ATGM team
Ohhhh I get it; you're a towelhead, or something closely related to one. Explains why you don't know what Combined Arms is.
You don't fight a combined arms battle by having one unit at a time dicking around all by their lonesome. You have multiple units from different branches working in tandem as one larger, more well rounded force. Instead of having a couple assholes with ATGMs waiting for a tank to roll into view, you have multiple ATGM teams that are working with infantry, artillery, engineers, etc. to either keep the tanks pinned in an area or funneled into an area that would leave them more vulnerable to shoot at. At the other end you don't just have a couple assholes in a tank driving around hoping they see the ATGMs gunners first, but you have them working with scouts, infantry, etc. to spot, and route out any ATGMs while they continue mission.
>>30429685
>Sit outside of gunrange
How often do you battle in perfect open fields with 5 km visibility?
This is the exact reason we moved away from full power cartridges, as most battles take close range.
>>30429692
Then the infantry is in vehicles. And those vehicles are much worse at combat than a force with tanks and mech infantry mixed.
>>30429695
I admit that I pushed it there. But disregarding that, you might fire of one or two atgms before someone knows atleast the general direction from where you are fiering.
After that the ATGM team needs to GTFO.
>[thing] is obsolete because it isn't 100% invulnerable to everything
Infantry are obsolete because rifles exist.
>>30428225
>>30428679
It needs a port hole so the fellas can stick out their guns and shoot people. https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA?t=116
>>30429789
It's ironic because people here are talking about how the ATGM makes the tank vulnerable and obsolete yet an ATGM crew is one of the most vulnerable things there are.
>>30428654
Get a real auto-cannon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wewaCdSW4yc
>>30429827
The ATGM's only job is to kill tanks. And even for this they aren't as effective as tanks. You could mount an ATGM on an armoured chassis but then it just becomes a poorly armoured tank.
>>30429740
>third grade reading comprehension skill
>>30429858
>just becomes a poorly armoured tankdestroyer
FTFY
Tanks were good when planes and bombs were not.
>>30429881
>still doesn't know what Combined Arms is.
>>30430127
>still incapable of basic comprehension
reread the thread goobo
>>30430344
What else is there to read? You claim that tanks are useless on a "modern battlefield" when you don't even know what actually constitutes a modern battlefield and how tanks and ATGMs fit into it. Instead you think the Arab way of sticking pieces of equipment alone is the way to do it, indicating that you don't really know how a combined arms operation works and/or you're an Arab and thus the concept is completely alien to you.
>>30430423
It is you who is clueless about the modern battlefield. You made some stupid claims which are blatantly false and then failed to comprehend simple posts and proceeded to argue against points nobody made.
what a retard
>>30428725
>Rains on tank- you stay dry
>Rains in shit gun pit- you get wet
>>30430814
Jesus shut the fuck up already, the guy completely ravaged your ass you ignorant stinking piece of horseshit.
>>30429650
> He thinks all ATGMs have thermals
/thread
