Why do we need 75 ton tanks when a guy can just climb out of a 25 ton IFV and kill the tanks with an RPG? Seriously, how can one tank compete against 3 IFVs full of guys that want to kill it?
By shooting HEAT from 3km away
>>30617716
Why do we need 3 IFVs when a guy can just climb into a 35 ton jet and kill the IFVs with A2G missiles? Seriously, how can 3 IFVs compete against a jet that wants to kill them?
>>30617716
>Seriously, how can one tank compete against 3 IFVs full of guys that want to kill it?
by shooting at them first
>>30617716
Because tanks are cool as fuck. That's why.
Coolness wins wars.
ITT Diamond is the hardest metal
>>30617716
Why do we armies when we can just nuke anyone on the planet?
>>30617716
You kill them first from miles away faggot
>>30617716
> implying RPGs can even get a mobility kill on modern tanks
> implying RPGs can even easily hit modern tanks at distances farther than 200m
> implying an IFV will get close to a modern tank in rural areas in equal opportunity conditions
There would be a discussion to be had about APS systems in the future if you said ATGM, which are a good rival for semi-urban areas.
>>30617716
>Summer /k
Life is suffering
man portable ATGM's don't do jack shit against modern tanks
Near term active protection systems will also counter these ATGM's
Plus tanks can instantly kill these people if they are seen.
If we are fighting solo tanks without any kind of support we've already won because the enemy is is dumbass who can't support his armour
fuckin' storefront
>>30617716
>implying a RPG out of all ATWs would even get close to a modern MBT without getting fucked up by the hardkill defense
>implying a RPG out of all ATWs would do shit to a modern MBTs front or side armor (not talking about T-55s getting rekt in Syria)
>implying a RPG out of all ATWs would
>>30620722
*Challenger II Iraq stories in the distance*
>>30617716
Take this from an 0313, scouts are generally an shit at doing anything more than sitting in the back of the vehicle and sleeping. If there are three IFV's vs a MBT, the gunners would be better off switching to AP (sabot or whatever you want to call it) and firing for the tracks and flanking to fire on the weaker armor
>>30620923
>man portable atgms dont kill mbts
Rpg29 and javelin easily kill every modern mbt. Rpg7 and carl gustaf m3 and at4 with the right warheads will kill any mbt without reactive armor.
>>30622226
The IFV's would maneuver to a position behind a berm or hill within the or just outside of the effective range for a dismounted AT weapon ie. Javelin, or Gustav. The troops would dismount and push out to form a line and would engage the MBT from multiple positions. The IFV's would back the infantry up but would never take on an MBT like a bunch of tards.
11b In mech unit, boy
>>30622108
>the only RPG to have ever existed is the RPG7 with the shaped charge warhead
RPG29 is top attack, meaning reactive armor is useless against it.
>>30622284
Firing from behind a berm would be preferable but our scouts don't carry javelins or Gustavs. The most I've witnessed is maybe a AT4 or a SMAW. Maybe
>>30622404
Yeah man as a scout it's not their job to do shit anyway. Every Stryker in my plt has a Jav gunner, some have 2.
>>30617868
Underrated post.
>>30622277
The RPG 29 taht hit a chally 2 hit it in the underside while it was cresting a hill. They remedied the problem by applying armour to the underside.
