Stealth Tank
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So the Polish are bringing back the concept of a light tank(only 30-35t), which is also stealthy. (Against those ground-ground radars?) Thoughts?
Seems kinda dumb of u ask me.
Tanks aren't supposed to be subtle.
>>30101113
No one asked you, because you're retarded. You know the number one rule of tank combat? He who sees first shoos first. He who shoots first hits first. He who hits first kills first. Ergo, if you see the other guy before he sees you, you're probably going to win.
>Stealth
>Tank
HUEHUEHUE
>>30100974
>tank
a CV90 with some painted plywood and a pvc pipe strapped to it, nobody takes this bullshit concept seriously...
it's just BAE trying to jew our MoD big time.
>>30101134
>stealth
So tell me, does this tank run on electricity? Or does it have an invisibility cloak that hides her fucking gigantic body?? Or does it walk quietly on its toes
You fucking dumb retard
>>30101134
>He who shoots first hits first
lol what.
That's not true at fucking all. It's always been "he who has the the bigger tank wins" or "the guys with more tanks win"
Don't be such a fucking retard and actually read a fucking history book once in your life. More armor, bigger gun, is all that matters. It doesn't mean shit if you see them first if your shots just bounce off the larger tank.
>>30101134
I honestly don't know if that's bait, or ur actually retarded
>>30101148
Let's think for a moment, okay? How do tanks see other tanks on the modern battlefield? Thermal sights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE
Does that look like it would significantly hinder the enemy's ability to spot you? And never mind the fact that tanks aren't just doing donuts in the open like your dumb ass in a gocart, but hiding behind things.
>>30101155
The T-72s that got rekt in Iraq would have had trouble piercing an the Abrams, but they rarely (if ever?) got the chance, because they were being engaged beyond their effective range and/or before they could react to US forces popping up over ridges.
>>30101155
Take a look at the studies done in WW2- the guy who shoots first is more likely to win. This is true even in Panther/Sherman fights.
>The study concluded that the most important factor was spotting and shooting first. Defenders fired first 84% of all engagement, inflicting 4.3 times more casualties on the attackers then suffered. When the attackers fired first, they inflicted 3.6 times as many casualties on the defenders compared to own losses
So you know, fuck off and learn something.
>>30101138
>stealth
>destroyer
HUEHUEHUE
>>30101161
See >>30101171
I'm sorry you are retarded, but them's the facts.
>>30101155
Not to mention the second a retarded "light stealth tank" shoots it's completely lost any and all advantages it had. Which means it will be a fixed position tank? I mean.. the second it moves it's going to be pretty obvious where it is. So if you just bait it to give it's position it's completely worthless.
Such a dumb fucking concept. Stealth works for planes because they can strike instantly and then get the fuck out of there.
Tanks are infantry support. They are meant to stay around a bit. If you need to blow something up secretly that's what seal teams are for. Using a tank would go like this "Sir our seismic detectors are picking up 6 40ton tanks 5 miles out. Also, we can fucking hear and see them. Blow em up with drones?"
>>30101171
Not him, but why does World War 2 tank doctrine hold any relevance to the modern age?
I can't think of a single example where the thinking of the time hasn't significantly changed. The obvious examples would be aircraft and the Navy.
>>30101175
You offered no facts
No logical argument
I'm gonna say it was a bad attempt at bait.
>>30101171
>Take a look at the studies done in WW2- the guy who shoots first is more likely to win.
You mean, the most obvious case of bigger tank + bigger gun winning?
Seriously are you fucking retarded? WW2 is the most obvious example of Allied tanks not being able to do fuck against the much heavier, much larger gunned Tigers.
Fuck you're retarded.
>>30101189
>why does World War 2 tank doctrine hold any relevance to the modern age?
It doesn't.
>it's the Current year
>>30101189
>Not him, but why does World War 2 tank doctrine hold any relevance to the modern age?
Here's the thing- Why wouldn't it? There's a reason NATO pursued FCSs and thermal sights. They allow them to see first, shoot first. When you're fighting tanks, you need to shoot them before you get shot.
>The obvious examples would be aircraft and the Navy.
The same things hold true even there. Did you know that air to air kills were achieved when the other guy didn't even know you were there? Or that carrier combat is all about finding and hitting the other guy before you get hit yourself? The concepts haven't changed. Technology has gotten a bit more advanced, but things have stayed mostly the same. Why would they change?
>>30101192
Really world war 2 is a great example of tanks being the worst way to fight tanks and "fuck it, just kill them from the air" being the lesson of the day.
>>30101192
Mate, I just posted the evidence. If you want to ignore it in favor of your own version of history, be my guest. Just look up the Battle of Arracourt.
>>30101191
>no facts or logic
>posted a study where they found that shooting first meant you were likely to win
>thinking that logic doesn't apply today
>>30101189
Tanks are cheaper. That's all there is to it. If there was ever a real ww3 airpower will be limited by production. An f-18 is about 10x the price of an m1-abrams. Air is also considerably more vulnerable. If air is going to be used it will be used sparingly and in quick low-risk missions. Any nation is never going to risk their expensive aircraft. Smart munitions like JDAMs are pretty expensive as well.
Tanks will once again be the backbone of any army. Tank on tank combat will be much more likely during a war UNTIL air superiority can be guaranteed.
Tank tactics won't change much. It will still be about the biggest tanks with the biggest guns gaining the better positioning. Even with advanced optics and targeting systems.
>>30101183
>Not to mention the second a retarded "light stealth tank" shoots it's completely lost any and all advantages it had.
Not really? You've got the enemy in your sights already, and you've likely already killed the first tank. Plus, if you're not an idiot, you're hull down, so if you really had to move, you can just reverse behind the rest of the hill. Such a difficult concept. You sure showed me.
The concept of a stealth tank is not to blow stuff up sneakily, but rather to see before it is seen, so it can shoot before being shot at.
Not to mention
>seismic detectors
and
>infantry support
Light tanks, perhaps, but armor as a whole is a far more potent maneuver force than just "supporting infantry".
>>30101189
If anything it's gotten more true as arms technology development has gotten much faster than armor tech development.
>>30101200
You're making generalizations. Hitting without being hit will always be a good thing. I think the assertion is that a "stealth" tank is a dumb joke, as tanks do not engage at beyond visual range like aircraft or ships do, and are not detected using radar.
Even if it's mystically incapable of being detected by thermal optics, something would still give it away. The exhaust, other people around it, the tank firing, et cetera. Modern tanks aren't just designed to shoot first, they're also designed to take hits, and such a vehicle would quickly lose any "stealth" if it started firing.
It seems like a waste of time. Better optics, better ammunition and better armor would all help more.
>>30101206
No one is taking you seriously because you're an idiot.
You posted bullshit statistics without context at all. What is it even talking about? What tanks were fighting? Did shermans somehow get the upper-hand with their munitions that couldn't even dent german armor? What armor was fighting which here? Was it germans firing first?
Do you not understand how context completely changes that fucking sentence you massive retard?
>>30101205
Only if you have air superiority. if you are going to lose a $70million plane to destroy a $6million dollar target you are losing that engagement.
>>30101192
>You mean, the most obvious case of bigger tank + bigger gun winning?
Did you know that in Operation Barbarossa, the Germans had far smaller tanks than the Soviets, and were relatively both poorly armed and armored? How, then, did the Germans achieve their success? Communication, coordination, and the fact that German commanders fought out of the hatch, allowing them a higher degree of situational awareness than their counterparts.
>claiming this despite what was just posted in the very quote you're responding to
Anon, you might just be retarded.
>>30101206
>Thinks stats from the 1940s apply to a modern combat scenario
Being this retard in 2016.
>>30101219
So you're saying the russians had the defense and ability to fire first but still lost.
huehuehuehue
>>30101217
That's not how that works.
The A-10 prove that statement is wrong.
Some dude took out 23 tanks in 1 day with a a-10
Too many idiots in this thread.
>>30101208
Its not good when people die and all that, but I would love to see a short conventional war between NATO and Russia, just to look at all the gopro footage of T90As against things like the abrams, leopard and chally 2.
This world has gone too long without a conventinal tank battle against 2 equal opponents, but like I said before, its not good if Americans, Brits or Russians died so Ill just have to shitpost on /k/.
>>30101223
>This
>>30101219
>russians unable to take back land until they developed much larger tanks with bigger guns
>compared to a fast blitz-krieg that allowed germans to gain ground in the first pllace
There are so many fucking variables going on there but it's pretty well known the russians were unable to win until they threw pure numbers and new tech at the germans. Russian tank pilots were incredibly novice and almost untrained against the germans who were experienced fighters.
It's like comparing german aircraft kills to allies. The german's numbers were greatly inflated by killing shit russian pilots in shit russian planes. Just look at any death count and you can clearly see the russians were the hardest hit. They just threw men at the germans until they were overrun zerg style.
>>30101214
>You're making generalizations.
Nope.
> I think the assertion is that a "stealth" tank is a dumb joke, as tanks do not engage at beyond visual range like aircraft or ships do, and are not detected using radar.
Only if you think stealth only means radar stealth, in which case you don't know what you're talking about.
>Even if it's mystically incapable of being detected by thermal optics
I believe I posted a youtube video showing such a thing. Even while the engine is on, it works.
Now, if the tank fires, it's definitely more able to be seen, however, it's still gotten the fist shot off. Unless someone happened to be looking exactly at the tank, when it fired, they're still not going to be able to see it for the next one. As successive rounds go by, the enemy gets more likely to see you, but even firing two or three rounds without taking return fire is a rather big deal. Do you have any idea how massive of an advantage that is? Any idea at all?
And even if there are other people around it, which there shouldn't be if you don't want to severely injure them by firing near them, wouldn't their eyes be drawn to the threat they could see rather than the one they couldn't? And if they do see you, you know what you can do? Just back up, and if you were smart and in hull down positions, now you have a rather solid wall of earth in between you and your foe.
And who says the system is mutually exclusive with better optics, munitions, or armor? Besides, not being hit at all is more trustworthy than hoping the enemy doesn't have good enough shells to get through your armor.
>>30101231
Come on man the a-10 is going against goat fuckers with rusted AKs and ancient RPGs.
The US has been able to fly around without any sort of retaliation. They are completey uncontested in any way.
If we fight a nation that ups it's military production to equal ours shit is going to change FAST. An a-10 is going to be pretty shit when brought up against whatever f-35 copy the chinese are using.
>>30101223
The problem with the Russians is that they were unable to fire first because they couldn't even see their foes. Two man turret meant that the commander had to both command the tank and gun, while searching for targets of his own. And he couldn't share his targeting information with others. Hence, Soviets tended to all shoot at the same guy once they saw something.
>>30101216
>You posted bullshit statistics without context at all. What is it even talking about? What tanks were fighting? Did shermans somehow get the upper-hand with their munitions that couldn't even dent german armor? What armor was fighting which here? Was it germans firing first?
The context of the entire war in the west. Both sides. All tanks and anti-tank guns. From august 44 up through december.
So, you know, kind of an all inclusive setting.
>>30101222
Why wouldn't they? If you see the other guy first, you can shoot him first. If you shoot him first, you're probably going to kill him before he kills you. End of story.
>>30101217
It also taught us that if you don't have air superiority you are best covering tanks in camo netting, not trying to move, fuel or fight with them unless you get a nice bit of heavy weather to try and teach those fucking Americans and Canadians a lesson.
>>30101235
>but it's pretty well known the russians were unable to win until they threw pure numbers and new tech at the germans.
But that's a bloody lie. You should know that "pop history" is generally wrong. The Soviets won in the East because they developed a system of war which worked, that being Deep Battle. Sure, it made good use of good old Soviet quantities, but these things can be seen even in Winter 1941, which was quite a bit before new technology came out, wouldn't you think? And no bigger guns came out in 42. Not really anything in 43 either. The Soviets made rather large counterattacks then, which were somewhat successful, don't you say?
>>30101232
>calls everyone an idiot
>adds nothing of value
>like the rest of your life
Nice shitposting son.
>stealth tank
It's a hybrid, like a Prius so it's quiet. Real good for sneakin up on muthafuckas.
>>30101264
>russians didn't just throw soldiers at the field
>lost 11,000,000 soldiers
>germans lost 4.5million fighting fucking everyone
>US lost 400,000
>japan lost over 1,000,000
Sure mate.
>>30101293
Mate, they didn't just toss them in front of machineguns. Well, maybe sometimes, but you have to understand what Deep Battle is. It's an operational and strategic way of war rather than tactical. On the operational and strategic scale, you are like a wave, crashing into your opponent. The parts which hit the strong part of his defense will not likely win, but they can't be strong everywhere. At some points breakthroughs will be achieved, and then these breakthroughs are reinforced and the attack continues. They flow around strongpoints, the assault echelon bypassing them and leaving their containment to follow on forces. This continues as far as you can.
>>30101304
>deep battle
>another way of saying "Using numbers"
>>30101247
If you put it that way they should've won- try watching Gooks play Starcraft and you see they micromanage the attacks of their units to focus on one target at a time- and remove the ones getting hammered; this is particularly apparent when playing as or against Protoss.
No, the problem exists in the poor utilization of the tanks themselves. They forgot the lessons of Khalkin Gol where they concentrated tanks against enemy weakspots but instead attached them to infantry(a la everyone else), allowing them to be defeated in detail by locally superior numbers of German tanks. Once they remembered that lesson they now had to deal with the fact that individually German tankers are just better trained and experienced(the initial jobbing of the allies didnt help here)- but thanks to superior expertise by the STAVKA in the operational levels they were able to mitigate German tactical prowess (seriously Kursk and Bagration are just fucking insane, if you read Ender's Game you'd appreciate the cold-blooded calculation there) and crush them at the higher levels.
>>30101155
>"he who has the the bigger tank wins" or "the guys with more tanks win"
>mfw these are the kind of pen pushing mongoloids that the DoD hires to write military doctrine
>>30101309
If you think that, then you're an idiot. Try opening a book and not relying on a History Channel education.
>>30100974
For the ****th fucking time!
ITS NOT A FUCKING TANK!
They call it tank, it looks like a tank, maybe it smells like a tank but its a IFV. The armor is paperthin, the gun is not big enough and it can CARRY 4-5 soldiers.
I would throw t-72 at it and still win, its not designed to battle other tanks or any heavy assaults. Its supossed to be a stealthy vehicule that carries special forces squads to battle and can deliver some firepower to the mix.
>>30101317
Would you use tanks(main/antiarmor) to destroy this?
>>30101318
>open a book
What book? Angels and Demons? Professor Astro Cat's Frontiers of Space? Cars and Trucks and Things That Go (Paperback)?
Stop using such a dumb non argument as if it's in any way valid.
Soviet Military doctrine was very much "Throw meat and metal at it in large enough quantities that it runs out of ammo or dies"
>>30101316
>If you put it that way they should've won- try watching Gooks play Starcraft and you see they micromanage the attacks of their units to focus on one target at a time- and remove the ones getting hammered; this is particularly apparent when playing as or against Protoss.
That works when your enemy has health bars. Real tanks don't. One penetrating hit, and if you hit with the 76.2 on a Pz III or Pz IV of the period, never to mention the lighter stuff, only a single hit is needed to kill it. This was true vice versa. Thus, if all of your dudes are wasting fire on a single target, and the other targets can kill multiple of you, you lose that engagement. On the tactical level, the Soviets just couldn't do it in the early months.
And yeah, as I mentioned earlier Soviet Deep Battle worked well later in the war.
>>30101323
No because it doesn't exist.
>>30101319
Mate, that's a CV90120. Has the gun of a tank, no infantry carrying capability. Only the CV90's armor, but that just makes it a light tank.
>>30101328
"I get all my facts from Warthunder": The post
>>30101319
>its not a tank because i can destroy it
>>30100974
it looks cool doesn't it?
don't be fooled.
the company that designed it "OBRUM" with pretentious name (loosely translated as "Research and Development Bureau for Mechanical Devices")
also "designed" howitzer that was plagued by the delays for 13 years and the ended up with licensed K9. However the prototype chassis was made using welded steel plated that lying in "basement" for "25 years" and it was fixed on recently
another jewel is adding powerpacks to t72 and calling it new tank and charging full price for it
PL-01 is nothing more than a publicity stunt made cover recent scandals regarding polish "defense industry"
>>30101338
Mate, if I got all my facts from Warthunder, I'd believe you'd have to kill every single man in the tank to knock it out. Fact of the matter is that if a tank got hit even a single time, the surviving crew tended to bail out, and for good reason- Another round is likely on its way in a couple seconds.
>>30101317
>faggots thinking a stealth tank would have any use.
What's the fucking point then faggot? Are you really saying a stealth tank would have any purpose whatsoever on the battlefield? This implies it'll be used to stealthy assault a position. There are hundreds of ways to see it making it completely worthless. if "radar" can't detect it or heat signatures or even visuals there is extremely simple tech that's been out for decades that would. Seismic monitors would be able to position them easily since they weigh 40 fucking tons.
Name one use of a stealth tank. Just one. Or a tank that has little armor and tiny gun.
>>30101328
But you have to consider the shit accuracy of fires at those times. They didn't even considered the first or second shots would hit. In this light having massed fires against single targets makes rather more sense.
>>30101340
No, because it doesn't have enough armor, it can't destroy other tanks without AT missiles, its light (35t) and it can carry people around.
>>30101352
Please quote exactly where in my post I said anything about stealth tanks.
>>30101318
How fucking retarded are the soviet fags on /k/?
All you have to do is fucking look at casualty numbers to tell the soviets relied on numbers than anything else. Be it armor destroy, planes shotdown, or men killed. They are all more than every other nation combined.
>>30101134
This thread got shitty real quick.
>>30101325
You could read just about any history on the Eastern Front. I'd suggest anything by David Glantz for this particular topic. He's probably the foremost authority on the subject in the English speaking world.
>>30101205
>World War Two
>Killing tanks from the air
Notoriously difficult, unless toure being genius and implying that bombing the shit out of factories, roads and refineries kills tanks.
>>30101352
>This implies it'll be used to stealthy assault a position.
That's where you're wrong. Light tank, so use against armor is defensive.
>>30101357
>thread about stealth tanks
>says the literal opposite of stealth tank is retarded.
>>30101370
Then why not just use a large fixed position gun?
Seriously? Whats the point? You just just put camo on an abrams and do the same thing.
>>30101352
>Name one use of a stealth tank
having a track driven vehicule that can go on hard terrain without being discovered and can carry things around while providing a higher firepower than a normal 20mm IFV?
Im just saying.
>>30101355
Not really. Think of naval engagements- you don't want too many people shooting at one target, or else you can't tell where your rounds are going and can't make proper corrections. Not to mention that accuracy is going to be independent. So while you're ranging in on one guy, the other enemies are each ranging in on you. Tell me how that works out.
>>30101374
>Then why not just use a large fixed position gun?
Because that can't keep up with the infantry and support them with both cannon and coax and can't maneuver when required, such as to avoid being maneuvered on.
>>30101361
The belief that the Soviets just threw men at the problem is a horrifically uneducated viewpoint. I'm not even a Sovietfag, I just know they weren't complete idiots.
>>30101352
>Seismic monitors
How fucking retarded are you? Seriously. Fuck you for even suggesting this.
>>30101390
>6,329,600 KIA or dead from wounds
>Didn't throw men at a problem
the whole Eastern front was just a snowy D-Day
>>30101381
Actually you can. Nobodies firing over your shoulder so to speak that you can easily distinguish which of shells downrange are yours.
>the other enemies are each ranging in on you
Again, generally you would have more German tanks within LOS than their opponents.
>>30101400
Sure thing.
>>30101403
>Nobodies firing over your shoulder so to speak
The same is true when you're in a fucking line of battle. It was still pretty fucking hard to spot fall of shell, especially when obscured by things being thrown into the air by short rounds.
>>30101404
It was.
Open a book, stop getting your facts from the Lenin channel
>>30101420
>Thinking I'm a Russian shill for not thinking the Russians were a bunch of incompetent idiots
Seriously? Mate.
>>30101385
So you want a tank without armor to fight in a prolonged battle.
usually, if you're defending a position you want to hold it. Armies fielding tanks don't exactly fight in guerrilla warfare.
Do you not understand how that works? You don't fucking "maneuver" when you're holding a line. You're giving up position.
There is a reason soldiers getting shelled dig in rather than just go somewhere else.
lol maneuver. What the fuck is wrong with you. The only time a tank "maneuver" is on the assault or counterattack. Which a stealthtank would be sorely under armored to do.
>>30101425
>Nearly 3x the casualties of the germans
>not incompetent
So what exactly is the reason of their deaths then?
>>30101438
>3x
1.3-1.8 military, actually
>>30100974
It won't matter, the germans will be knee-deep in Warsaw by the time they have even filled their tanks up.
>>30101361
>All you have to do is fucking look at casualty numbers to tell the soviets relied on numbers than anything else. Be it armor destroy, planes shotdown, or men killed. They are all more than every other nation combined.
US and SU had ~100k in aircraft losses.
>>30101432
>So you want a tank without armor to fight in a prolonged battle.
It's got armor. It doesn't have MBT level armor, but it's got IFV level armor. Seems to have worked historically.
>Do you not understand how that works? You don't fucking "maneuver" when you're holding a line. You're giving up position.
Are you familiar with the term "mobile defense"? How about "delay"? You've never even opened a field manual, what the hell do you know?
Mate, you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. If the option is fall back to better positions or get overrun, which one do you choose? Which one serves your country better? Dying in your positions accomplishes nothing other than wasting an asset. Instead, you fall back, and reestablish another line further back. That further back might be even a measly hundred meters.
So no, anon, you're fucking retarded, and have no clue how tanks are actually used. In fact, armor is recognized as one of the best forces to perform a mobile defense or delay, because it does have that capacity to maneuver.
>>30101425
>>30101438
You see, people like to pretend they know more than everyone else and will go against anything that's "common knowledge" or shown on the history channel (which hasn't show anything ww2 in over 10 years)
They are light conspiracy theorists. No matter how many facts or statistics you show these people they will say you're an ignorant pleb that doesn't know REAL history.
Sure the russians had more casualities and deaths of every other nation combined. On their one front. But these "facts" aren't important.
>>30101444
>1.3-1.8 military, actually
What? What are you talking about?
They had 11 million casualties. Germans had like 4-5 million.
>>30101454
They took more casualties, nobody is disputing that. What I AM disputing is that it doesn't mean they were incompetent idiots with no sense of strategy. That's just fucking retarded. If that were the case, the Soviets would have lost the war.
>>30101361
>armor destroyed
comparable to western allies
>planes shotdown
comparable to western allies
>men killed
western allies actually did worse (by ratio)
>>30101450
>Soviet Union: Total losses of 106,400 aircraft, with 88,300 in combat
> Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses. On TWO fronts
US lost 38k in combat(europe) and russians lost 88k.
US lost an additional 14.5k in the Pacific.
So... what is that again?
>>30101461
>taking CONSIDERABLE more losses
>not incompetent
I just.. what?
>>30101447
Actually, looking at German readiness rates, it'd probably be the Polish tanks in Berlin before the Bundeswehr is ready.
>>30101461
>>30101467
>>30101461
>soviets lose 83,500 tanks
>germans lose 49,900 tanks
Oh....
>>30101472
Anon, stop shitposting.
>>30101483
forgot to mention.
US, french, and UK lose 30k tank all in multiple theaters when soviets lost theirs all on one front.
Imo tanks are a waste for current and any future wars that might happen.
Look at the Abrams. Awesome tank, held its own for years, yet a durka with the right type of AT rocket can take one out quite easily. Its intimidation factor is all it really has left. Durkas have way too many ways of getting hold of high explosives, and are rather good at hiding them in nasty places for the next vehicle that rolls along to find.
Realistically, Drones and up-armored infantry transports should be the way forward. Drone strikes ahead of a fast mobile infantry advance, boom, done.
Compared to WWII, where the infantry had no real way of combatting heavy armor without their own heavy armor. Tanks are fucking awesome, I'd kill for a tiger to park in my front yard, but armor battles are over.
>>30101497
You're a fucking idiotic cunt, fuck off.
>>30101467
Why the fuck where operational losses that fuck huge? aren't American aircraft supposed to last longer?
>>30101459
Take out the 3 million Soviet POWs outright murdered I guess.
>>30101491
>posts facts
>NO STOP IT
Holy shit you're retarded. Soviets took nearly 3x hits, and twice as many tanks against the germans.
But you're totally right. They totally won using superior tactics and not through sheer numbers :^)
Ignorant faggot.
>>30101505
Because the good shit didn't come until nearly the end of the war.
Japan had to deal with fucking massive naval battles and suicidal bombings.
>>30101492
>soviets lost theirs all on one front.
They fought on two fronts too you know, despite Japan being a sideshow really.
Also why is fighting on more fronts even important? If anything it actually degrades your point since any other front ie against Japan it was a stomp.
>>30101508
Yes, you tend to take heavy casualties when you're attacking into a superior force. The fact of the matter is, the Soviets repeatedly outmaneuvered the Germans on an operational and Strategic level. Does the name Operation Bagration mean anything to you? Were its happenings the result of just throwing men at the problem blindly? Do you ignore the very existence of the destruction of Army Group Center?
>>30100974
>stealth
when will this meme die?
>>30101514
Not to mention that the Soviets fought more Germans on their one front than the Western Allies ever saw on all their fronts. Of course they took more casualties.
>>30101514
>fighting more enemies doesn't matter.
What other major front did the russians fight in despite the eastern front?
Japan wasn't a roflstomp. They were a radical, experiences, and entrenched enemies that fought to the last man. If it weren't for the bombings japan would have caused more deaths and destruction than germany had.
>>30101505
>Russia didn't commit atrocities against german POWs
OP here. I am amazed at which directions this discussion has been going. The fact that some people outright refuse to acknowledge the usefulness of a small, (cheap?) tank that is hard to detect, but has the capability to take out a contemporary MBT, dazzles me. Mind you, most modern armies make good use of the following: Aerial reconnaissance, drones, ground-ground radar, aerial/vehicle/infantry thermal imaging in order to find out their enemies position. Diminishing the effectiveness of those assets against your assets should be a main priority of yours. And see first - kill first is a thing. There is a reason soldiers run about in camouflage fatigues and not the fancy dresses from the 1800s. That concept is then translated to detection methods except eyesight and applied to all your stuff, including vehicles.
>>30101527
>Yes, you tend to take heavy casualties when you're attacking into a superior force
Really? Because the US and UK seemed to do alright.
>>30101537
>hard to detect,
This is the part you fail at. No Tank is "hard to detect" or ever will. They are fucking tanks.
A camo'd MBT is more effective than that shit ever will be. A "Stealth" tank is a retarded concept.
>>30100974
Interesting idea. Using the ground as cameoflage means a stealthy ground vehicle can be harder to detect than most planes.
Might be a good means of countering air power. Would give a slight edge in ground combat as well but all that stealth is going to compromise the armor.
Hardest part is masking the heat. Unlike a plane, you don't have a high speed airflow to cool the engines so you've got to make one.
>>30101536
>What other major front did the russians fight in despite the eastern front?
Manchuria. They curbstomped the Japanese in Manchuria.
And they fought FAR more Germans in the East than the Western Allies fought in the West.
>>Russia didn't commit atrocities against german POWs
He didn't say that, stop trying to stir up shit and look at things historically.
>>30101536
>They were a radical, experiences, and entrenched enemies that fought to the last man.
The ones starved of supplies in the islands, sure. The majority who are in Manchuria however got steamrolled by the Soviets mirroring their getting steamrolled in 1941 in turn/
>>Russia didn't commit atrocities against german POWs
Scratch off 400k from above then.
>>30101162
Clever, you don't want to be completely cold, just cold enough you don't look like a tank. Still have to flush the heat somehow, though.
>>30101538
I mean, other than the parts where they didn't and the fact that they constantly had superior forces other than essentially a two week period of time? Sure.
>>30101564
I'm sure the germans decided to be easy on the americans.
This board has the most retarded boner for slav shit to the point of worship. You faggots are worse than the people that say american won ww2 single handed. In your minds you just replace the US with the Red Army.
"They only had crazy losses because the germans tried super hard on their front!"
>>30101545
It would be easier to make a tank stealthy than a plane and we've made stealth planes. You've got more tonnage to work with, ground to act as camouflage, and the ability to simply turn off the engine and not crash.
Most of the arguments against stealth tanks have been solved by stealth planes already.
So...unless you've got a good reason why a tank can't be stealthy other than "A tank can't be stealthy", I'm going to say a tank Can be stealthy.
>>30101537
meh, /k/ on the whole is stubborn and unimaginative. Don't tank it personally.
>>30101581
Consider the amount of forces the Germans deployed to the Eastern Front vs other fronts:
>Rüdiger Overmans in Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg estimates that from the Polish campaign to the end of 1944, 75-80% of all German armed forces personnel died or went missing in action on the Eastern Front up to the end of 1944. According to Krivosheev’s research, throughout the war, the vast majority of German divisions were concentrated against the Soviet Union – in 1942, for instance, there were 240 fighting in the East and 15 in North Africa, in 1943 there were 257 in the East and up to 26 in Italy and even in 1944 there were more than 200 in the East compared to just 50 understrength and sub-par divisions in the West. From June 1941 to June 1944, 507 German (and 607 German and Allied) divisions and 77,000 fighters were destroyed in the East, compared to 176 divisions and 23,000 fighters in the West. The two pivotal battles, Stalingrad and El Alamein, differed in scale by a factor of about ten.
>>30101564
see this shit right here is some mental gymnastics shit going on.
You're saying that the Russians had high casualty because germans were superior. But the germans were superior against the US and UK. Those were DIFFERENT germans because german generals wanted to be nice to the brits and burgers right?
It couldn't possibly be that the western front the Allies were superior for other reasons and didn't fucking lose millions of men because they weren't retarded like the russians. If russians fought superior Gemeran soldiers that LITERALLY FUCKING MEANS the russians were inferior. They were incompetent compared to the other Allies. The Reds were even on their home fucking turf and had a huge fucking advantage in those conditions.
Just what kind of fucking retarded logic are you using here? The soviets straight up used numbers to win their battles. The numbers prove it. Unless you think Germans fielded super soldiers on the eastern front but decided not to do that on the other.
>>30101608
>Eastern Front up to the end of 1944.
So you're telling me until there were allied forces on the western front germans had the majority of their forces elsewhere?
Just.. fuck this board. Jesus fucking christ.
>>30101581
You're fucking retarded. They DID try super hard on their front. That's where the vast majority of the German army was. The Western Allies made a huge amount of contributions, and without them, the Soviets would almost surely have lost the war. That still doesn't change the basic fact that the Red Army did, by the numbers, the majority of the fighting. Thus, they should be expected to take the majority of the casualties. Then, we take a moment to consider that, unlike the UK and the Americans, the Soviets didn't have two+ years to build up forces and prepare an invasion of mainland Europe. Instead, the Soviets were thrust into a war without being prepared for it. They got slaughtered in the opening stages of Barbarossa because of it. However, those early war forces were very different than the ones who launched Bagration, just like the Americans at Kasserine Pass were very different than the ones who crossed the Rhine. By that point in the war, they both matured into capable fighting forces. How else could they have won the war?
>>30101608
This shit doesn't even fucking matter when it comes to german loses compared to soviet loses.
>>30101623
>They DID try super hard on their front.
Holy shit you're actually serious.
>>30101616
>But the germans were superior against the US and UK.
No, I said the US and the UK were superior to the German forces which they faced.
Deep Battle is not just tossing numbers at the board. It's a very sophisticated system of battle. The employment of the VVS in support of it was superb. Yes, the Russian troops were sub-par, but the Russian strategies were not. Remember, they beat the Germans by outflanking them and crushing their forces.
>>30101631
>ignoring what I said
The Germans DID fight very hard in the West, no one is disputing that fact. However, that doesn't change the fact that the focus of the German effort was always in the East.
>>30101616
>Those were DIFFERENT germans because german generals wanted to be nice to the brits and burgers right?
They lost most of those high quality troops in 1941-1944. The wehrmacht the western allies encountered were green troops.
>>30101650
That's a lie as well. There were a number of hardened troops in the West. However, they were probably a majority of green troops, originally.
>>30101134
You're basically describing an ambush which is fine and all but if your army actually intends to start the tank and move it somewhere then that's just not going to work.
Sounds a lot like 70's and 80's NATO doctrine where the idea was hide the tanks and shoot ducks in a barrel as the enemy swarms toward you.
That's a single scenario in a big world and this isn't that world anymore.
>>30101621
>>30101624
>>30101665
It's not just an ambush. If you see the defender first, as the study shows, you're likely to kill them first. Now, it is a light tank, so it likely isn't going to be attacking into enemy armor, which is why I assume that the light tanks are on the defensive. This doesn't necessarily mean an ambush, although the effect is somewhat similar. Other than that? Infantry support.
>>30101642
To be fair
It's not surprise that the Germans fought harder on the Eastern Front than on the Western Front.
If you were a German soldier and got captured in the Western Front, you'd maybe get thrown a beating, but you probably wouldn't get shot, just thrown in a POW camp and told to fill sandbags or something.
Get captured on the Eastern Front, you'd be beaten, shot and if you were a woman, probably liberated.
>>30101171
You should take a look at the studies done in WW1- the guy with the longest bayonet and the deepest trench is more likely to win against the crew of the gigantic metal box stuck in the mud between the lines.
This stuff changes over time.
>>30101621
>up to the end of 1944
That includes the Bulge, the most troops that were ever on the Western Front at any point of the war. So, you know, they were in the midst of some heavy fighting by that point.
>>30101686
That's incorrect. Tanks were part of several things which brought mobility back to the Western Front. Not only that, but this is one of the truisms of war. If you can shoot your enemy when he hasn't seen you yet, you're likely to win. Tell me how that changes over time. I'm waiting.
>>30101650
Most soldiers going into a war are green you realize this right? The germans that invaded russia weren't ww1 vets. It takes one battle to make a sodlier "green" to "one of the old breed"
Germans aren't retarded. They know the importance of mixing experiences soldiers with new recruits.
>>30101642
>we gotta try super hard guys. Just super hard over here.
They places soldiers depending on the size of the enemy army. Since russians relied so heavily on numbers....
>>30101635
>No, I said the US and the UK were superior to the German forces which they faced.
And the russians were inferior to the germans. Hence why the lost so many soldiers.
"deep battle" is such a vague fucking term it has almost no meaning. It's basically a screening tactic on a strategic level. As in, you confuse your enemy about where you will strike next.
Which, to properly conduct such a strategy, requires numbers larger than who you're fighting. The russians were able to keep losing soldiers and still strike in such numbers as to make the enemy think that's where they are going to focus their efforts. Which means the enemy doesn't know where to deploy reserves, focus logistic operations, and confuses them to the point their front is too widely thinned and weak.
meanwhile the germans used blitz-krieg since they don't have large numbers and focus their attacks to single point.
So yes, "deep battle" is a numbers game. The russians love that shit because they do have numbers and have no value of the individual. The germans literally couldn't pull off that strategy. Russia is a large fucking country. Germany ain't.
>>30101134
This isn't naval combat. Spotting your target first means fuck all if your dinky 105/100 mm cannon cannot punch a hole through their armour.
>>30101687
have you looked at a map recently? Have you?
How big is russia?
How big is france?
>>30101698
It was a joke. Look, there are so many more ways to locate hidden enemy armor and deal with it today that just saying "Shoot your enemy before he shoots you and you win" is just a gross oversimplification of the situation and how it will will play out. Infantry with ATW, Helicopters, Drones, A10's, the fucking list goes on man.
With tanks the benefits of stealth don't really extend much past camouflaging it really well and hoping to surprise your enemy (and that's an ambush) so you get your first shot and then the enemy knows where you are and all the other pieces in modern warfare come into play thanks to simple shit like communication.
Now you have to move and once you are doing that you're just another tank (a smaller, poorer armored tank) on the battlefield. Oh look, here comes an Apache or an A10
>>30101732
Good thing this is a 120mm gun, huh?
>>30101732
It's such a retarded concept. "he who shoots first wins" is not how combat works.
The person on defense literally always shoots first. So posting statistics like >>30101171 means fuck all.
Literally everyone knows the force on defense has the advantage and will take less casualties than the attacked. The attacker NEVER fucking shoots first. They are always at a disadvantage.
A big tank with heavy armor and bigger guns is still going to be able to shoot first by god damn default of being a defender.
Stealth tanks are just so god damn stupid.
>>30101750
there's a name for something like that. It's a glass cannon.
The last fucking thing you want on a fucking TANK. You might as well just put the cannon on a truck.
>>30101172
The concept works on destroyers because you can be virtually sure that any destroyer-mounted weapon from the past century can sink an opposing destroyer with ease; distance and the first strike are all the defenses they have, so any measure that makes it harder for the enemy to make the first strike/score a hit on it is viable.
>>30101183
No, stop it, that line of thinking is what lost France Paris. Infantry are TANK support, and they exist to hold ground so if the bad guy comes hopping in they can radio the tanks their location for quick reinforcement.
>>30101728
>The germans that invaded russia weren't ww1 vets.
If they were they wouldn't get any far with the outdated way of fighting they are accustomed to. No, the troops who invaded the SU were both: a)trained extensively before the war in maneuver warfare and b)had experience and validation of those new ways of war against the western allies.
>It takes one battle to make a sodlier "green" to "one of the old breed"
No it doesn't. Getting PTSD sure but not combat expertise.
>Germans aren't retarded. They know the importance of mixing experiences soldiers with new recruits.
Except that apart from the few panzer battalions and luftwaffe squadrons(essentially shock troopers) they didn't send much hardened soldiers in the western front. Even worse, the way those units operated left little mingling with the hoi polloi troops.
>>30101142
I spent the February and March in Poland as part of a military cooperation exercise, it seems that the polish hate the fuck out of the Russians too, and can confirm the tank is real.
Saw it moving and firing, touched it and looked inside.
Didn't look at armor in depth, could have been concrete for all I know, but the tank exists and isn't plywood/pvc.
That said, only saw one of them. Poland is a poor country and the Zloty is 4:1 to the dollar. Don't really expect them to have many.
>>30101233
They can always give Abrams and Armatas to Pakistan and India and tell them to go at it for SCIENCE!
>>30101765
tanks are infantry support
> what lost France Paris
What? How? How does that make any fucking sense.
The point is tanks do not work without infantry, but infantry can work without tanks. "infantry are tank support" is so retarded.
>they can radio the tanks their location for quick reinforcement.
That's literally using tanks to support infantry.
>>30101770
>Zloty is 4:1
If they make the components on their own currency differences wouldn't matter.
>polish hate the fuck out of the Russians too
Its a cyclical thing. Next century they would be mirin on the Russians and hating on the Germans.
>>30101728
>It takes one battle to make a sodlier "green" to "one of the old breed"
Oh Lord no. No. You did not just say that. Fucking hell, man. As the war went on past 1942, the quality of German troops generally fell. A single battle does not bring you up to the same quality as someone who was in the Army through the Invasion of Poland, France, and Barbarossa, and had prewar training. Especially not if you're not old enough, or maybe you're too old. The Western Allies saw this as well. The observation was that replacements tended to die quickly. It takes more than one tussle to bring you up to snuff. And while they did mix in veteran NCOs from other units to form cadres for new ones, they weren't as good as the men they replaced, and most of them never would be, dying before they reached that point.
> Since russians relied so heavily on numbers....
More accurately that the Russians HAD a lot of numbers, not that they relied on them.
>"deep battle" is such a vague fucking term it has almost no meaning. It's basically a screening tactic on a strategic level.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Compare and contrast Deep Battle to the German Schwerpunkt. The Germans would focus their efforts on creating a single breach, and concentrate their forces ahead of time to do it. The Russians would attack along the front to see where the weaknesses were, and then sent in troops to make the gap, and then exploit it. It's the difference between pushing and pulling. The Germans tried to pull the battle where they wanted it, the Russians pushed it where it went.
Deep Battle does utilize the fact that Russia did have the forces to enable it to successfully encircle and bypass large units. But to say that's just "mindlessly throwing men into the grinder" is absolute and complete horseshit. They didn't waste men frivolously. Deep Battle is a very intelligent way of running the war, providing you have the forces to do it. As you said, Germany did not have those forces.
>>30101739
That doesn't exactly apply. At all.
>>30101309
It's another way of saying, "Human Wave."
The Russians have this as a tactic to this day.
>>30101728
Schwerpunkt: systematically encircling, then defeating the pockets in detail.
Deep Battle: bypassing strongpoints and punching through weakpoints to get to the rear and cause a collapse.
>>30101770
BAE pls
>>30101820
oh great, next we are going to hear the Chinese zerg rushed/ human waved the UN forces in Korea...
>>30101749
>"Shoot your enemy before he shoots you and you win" is just a gross oversimplification of the situation and how it will will play out
Perhaps, but that's what it boils down to. Any advantage you have to make you shoot him before he shoots you is a good one.
>With tanks the benefits of stealth don't really extend much past camouflaging it really well and hoping to surprise your enemy
Have you fucking seen the Youtube video posted? Even after a single shot, you STILL aren't likely to be seen, unless they were looking right at you. You have the chance to fire quite a few more rounds before you're spotted. Not being seen on thermals is a massive advantage. You don't understand just how big it is. At that point, the enemy could use other arms against you, but the same is true for you. Just because you have this system does not make them just disappear. Tell me, how would a conventional thing without it do better?
>Now you have to move and once you are doing that you're just another tank (a smaller, poorer armored tank) on the battlefield.
At it's core, this design is an infantry support tank. Lighter to be cheaper, but with a big enough gun to kill tanks and protect the infantry. And even when you move, you've still got the stealth. It doesn't disappear. You still have the spotting advantage.
>Oh look, here comes an Apache or an A10
That would kill an MBT as well. Not to mention you'd have a hell of a time targeting this thing, because of its thermal signature. So this would be more survivable in that situation. How is this an argument against it?
>>30101832
>completely denying russians relied solely on numbers
>even their great "deep battle" only works with numbers
You have delusion problems anon.
>>30101823
>they can radio the tanks their location for quick reinforcement.
>making your own definition
That's not what it is at all. It's literally a larger form of screening. Attack multiple points with your larger numbers to confuse the enemy of your real objective. That's all it fucking is. You literally couldn't do it without large numbers and large casualties.
>>30101756
>It's such a retarded concept. "he who shoots first wins" is not how combat works.
Based on the studies done postwar, it seems like that's what the biggest deciding factor on who kills who is.
>The attacker NEVER fucking shoots first.
Those numbers say 16% of the time, they do shoot first. And when they do, they come out on top.
>A big tank with heavy armor and bigger guns is still going to be able to shoot first by god damn default of being a defender.
Don't attack with fucking light tanks into MBTs. They're infantry support vehicles at their core. If you did have to do it, the fact that you can get a tiny thermal signature while going hull down could give you quite the advantage at spotting. Once again, watch the video up above.
>>30101853
"Perhaps, but that's what it boils down to. "
No, it doesn't. That would mean literally every force in defense position would win.
>you STILL aren't likely to be seen, unless they were looking right at you.
Ignoring drones, satellites, other forces, thermals, and all that shit but OK ANON.
>"you don't understand how big it is"
Know what's even smaller and easier to camo? A fixed gun.
>"That would kill an MBT as well.
Then why even field an expensive, weaker stealth tank? It has no benefits over a regular tank. It's inferior in every way.
>>30101874
Okay you're not even trying.
Good god you're retarded.
>>30101763
>using MMO terms to describe combat
Yeah, no, that's not how it works. And besides, you'd be hard pressed to take a main gun round with an MBT these days. Being able to take everything up to that point is good enough. Tanks don't "tank" damage. In fact, getting hit at all is quite hazardous for them. That just gets them killed.
A truck mounted system will not have enough armor or cross country mobility.
>>30101861
>Attack multiple points with your larger numbers to confuse the enemy of your real objective. That's all it fucking is.
This is blatantly incorrect. When you're attacking from those multiple positions, even YOU don't know which parts you'll reinforce. You might have a good idea of which attacks might succeed, but if another attack succeeds, you reinforce that one. You aren't screening your intentions, you are launching multiple offensives at once, and reinforcing any that succeed. If they succeed, you put your effort into them, even if they're not the one you originally wanted. One of the drives hits a wall, you stop reinforcing it, and move those resources to others that are still moving forwards. THAT is Deep Battle.
>>30101795
Unlikely. Even the teenagers hate the fuck out of the Russians.
People tend to hate the guys threatening them, and right now the Russians are threatening everyone.
Also the Polish remember well the shit they got put through throughout the Soviet times and don't intend to deal with that again.
>>30101749
>>30101756
It actually does maker sense, Just not from a tank vs tank perspective.
Rather, it's a way of dealing with air power. Modern tanks die like dogs to air superiority simply because they aren't set up to deal with them. Laser guided bombs and helicopter gunships are tailor made to tear tank columns apart and we've seen this happen in Iraqi. Granted, it was Iraqi but the point still stands.
A stealth tank will be harder to kill from the air. If they shut down their engines they can either wait until the aircraft hit bingo fuel or let their AA escorts clear the skies.
>>30101958
Do they still hate Germany or would they be willing to ally with them to fight the Russians?
>>30101881
>No, it doesn't.
War boils down to this- shoot the enemy before he shoots you. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Yes, it is more complex than that, but anything which promotes that basic interest is not a bad thing. Defenders do have the advantage, but the attacker has ways to mitigate this, and should hopefully have more troops in the field. Losses are expected. This is war, after all.
>Ignoring drones, satellites, other forces, thermals, and all that shit but OK ANON.
First of all, there are a myriad of ways to drive off drones, and a stealth system is less likely to be seen than one without it. Satellites aren't going to be supporting tactical maneuvers like that. It's just an impossibility.
As for other forces and thermals, have you looked at that Youtube video I posted yet? Have you seen how that works? You have the advantage of thermals, and your foe does not. You will likely see him first because of it. End of story.
>Know what's even smaller and easier to camo?
That doesn't have the "active camouflage", nor the stealth systems, basic self protection, any modicum of mobility, a machinegun, and probably not a super advanced FCS. And the gun can't be too big, or else it would be difficult to move, which is important for relocating, so the enemy can't maneuver on you or drop artillery on your static ass. Not to mention that you still can't use it to keep up with your infantry! So no, anon. A towed gun would not work.
>Then why even field an expensive, weaker stealth tank?
Because you want an infantry support tank which costs less than an MBT and is lighter as well? Those are its advantages, you cuckweasel.
You aren't even trying, mate.
>>30101969
>It actually does maker sense, Just not from a tank vs tank perspective.
Look at it from a tank vs tank perspective. You see that Youtube video? Tell me with a straight face that denying the enemy the ability to see you on thermal optics is not a big advantage.
>>30101832
They tried it in Vietnam regularly.
Deny it all you want, "Rush everything at their line and hope someone gets through somewhere!" was the Soviet plan. To say a stupid tactic wasn't stupid only happens when you're a stupid Slav.
Read what Patton thought of the Russians. He was, of course, absolutely right about them.
>>30101995
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA
Please tell me you unironically believe all you just spouted. Oh God. My sides are hurting while i type this. hang on a sec
>>30101785
>Tanks can't work without infantry
Even if i were to assume that were true (protip: it's not), that would mean the infantry are supporting the tanks so that they can function
>>30101785
Tying tanks to infantry support is a terrible idea because infantry are not able to advance in the conditions that tanks are capable of; France's mixed infantry/tank units failed for this reason in spite of the fact that they were facing Panzer IIs and IIIs with paper-thin armor even for the period, as the infantry component did nothing but slow them down and did negligible damage to the homogeneous mechanized spearheads (tanks+more tanks>tanks+infantry) of the opposition; what they should have done is have their tanks separated from the infantry component of the unit, which should only have arrived AFTER their tanks (which were spread out thinly in spite of technically outnumbering the Germans because of the infantry support doctrine) had cleared out opposing armour.
For a more modern example, brads tried advancing with the Abrams during the Gulf War, and if it wasn't for the fact the Iraqi Army were illiterate conscripts, they would have been in for a bad time: instead, only 3 of them were lost; all three losses of which could have been prevented if they stayed behind and waited for the tanks to do their job.
Tanks should support infantry when they're needed; as after all, they're usually better at killing infantry than infantry itself. Tanks should NOT be bound to the whims of the infantry unless absolutely vital as infantry are inherently inferior in the line of battle whether they're on foot (slow) or mounted in IFVs (vulnerable). Note that most of the times tanks require infantry at all is because of tactical misuse, such as driving them through urban environments which require specific designs like the Merkava to operate effectively.
light-tank-cv90 looks better without the styrofoam covers
>>30102062
This is utter and complete bullshit and it flies in the face of all knowledge about tank warfare that has ever been gained since its inception. Tanks REQUIRE infantry support that can keep up with themselves. Every Soviet Tank Battalion had a company of tank riders, infantrymen armed with SMGs, one squad per tank. The Americans generally had a tank company and an armored infantry company tied together, under the command of a single man. Hell, even the Germans themselves went from an the 1940 armored division consisting of two tank regiments and a single infantry regiment to a 1:1 mix in the months preceding Barbarossa. In short, tanks need infantry, and all supporting arms. To illustrate this, let me quote General Chaffee, one of the great tank pioneers. "Armor is more than a branch. It is a state of mind whereby a balanced team of arms and services work together, in a climate of equal importance and equal prestige." You need all of these combined arms in order to reach the full effect of armor.
>>30101148
Get your lessons learned: sight stealth and thermal stealth have been improved and used for years, even for tanks.
>>30101992
Oh it would help tank vs tank but I think you'd need to compromise in order to get that advantage. Those tiles are fairly bulky so at the very least you're sacrificing either mobility or protection. Either way there's no way to cover the muzzle flash so you're going to loose stealth with the first shot. Granted, this gives you the first shot but in a prolonged tank battle this only goes so far.
Those tiles are also complicated and most likely expensive. As such, you're going to be able to field less tanks than your enemy. That, combined with your other compromises makes stealth tanks an awfully risking investment.
That being said, it's not an infesible option.
>>30100974
I don't wanna hear another thing about "stealth tanks" until they develop actual active camouflage. Until I'm standing 10 feet from the tank and can't see, it's not a stealth tank.
>>30101155
>read a fucking history book
Follow your own advice, you fucking retard.
>>30102083
That one has the 120mm smoothbore, right? Good tank destroyer and makes extensive use of ERA plates.
>>30102157
By your logic stealth planes don't exist either.
>>30102148
>Those tiles are fairly bulky so at the very least you're sacrificing either mobility or protection.
Eh, mildly. Can't be any worse than most other applique armor package.
>Either way there's no way to cover the muzzle flash so you're going to loose stealth with the first shot.
The issue with the muzzle flash idea is that you'd have to be looking directly at the muzzle blast to react to it that fast. I would wager you would get off a minimum of two shots before the enemy starts returning fire, probably more, especially if there are other targets around that grabbed their attention first. This likely translates into an additional two shots or more than you would otherwise have gotten. Two shots is a pretty big deal. If you have a platoon of four of these things, that's 8 shots, which is probably 4-6 vehicles knocked out, up to and including MBTs. I don't know about you, but that's a worthwhile cost/benefit.
>>30102185
>Eh, mildly. Can't be any worse than most other applique armor package.
Well you can't pack ERA plates on it.
>I would wager you would get off a minimum of two shots before the enemy starts returning fire, probably more, especially if there are other targets around that grabbed their attention first. This likely translates into an additional two shots or more than you would otherwise have gotten. Two shots is a pretty big deal. If you have a platoon of four of these things, that's 8 shots, which is probably 4-6 vehicles knocked out, up to and including MBTs. I don't know about you, but that's a worthwhile cost/benefit.
That assumes that you can knock out a tank with a single hit. Consdering that the prototype has a 120mm L/50, there's a risk that it's not going to be able to pierce the frontal armor of some tanks. In addition to that, ERA tiles might defeat the first few shots. As a result you could very well spend 3-4 shots on a single tank. Grant, this still means you've got 2-3 free kills but if it comes to a slugfest is that going to be enough? Keep in mind the expense of the tiles, you can bet you're going to be outnumbered.
I'm basically playing devils advocate at this point. Being able to hide from air power alone is going to be worthwhile.
>thread disintegrates into a shit flinging contest about tank battles
>>30102170
Yeah I think so. They're also researching some funky active suspension system that ought to give it even better mobility.
>developing stealth tanks and ships
>eventually technology is going to make camo and stealth technology obsolete
are we eventually going to go back to wearing colorful uniforms to better distinguish ourselves
>>30101245
You do know that the 90s, the gulf war and Bosnia happened right?
>>30101205
>i'm dumb and don't know anything
Tanks were fantastic tank killers. tank destroyers were only used in defensive operations, because tanks were better at attacking and destroying enemy tanks.
tank kills by air power were somewhat rare, with most of the kills attributed to planes being done so wrongly by poorly trained battlefield survey crews.
>>30101192
>WW2 is the most obvious example of Allied tanks not being able to do fuck against the much heavier, much larger gunned
are you literally retarted? all of that shit is actual hollywood myth. shermans knocked out tigers in 1-2 hits and tiger shells would often bounce off shermans because of the badass sloping on the armor.
allied armor usually beat germans because of superior mobility and faster firing rate. allied tank guns were just big enough to punch holes in german armor at 500 meters. german guns were bigger sure, but nobody could hit a damn thing past 500m in a tank back then, so it didn't matter. german tanks had just enough armor and weight to be slow and easy to hit. they also broke down a lot and were too complex for crew to fix.
shermas ran on ford v8, could be field repaired by farmboy tank crews, was faster, smaller, better slopped armor, and enough gun to put a hole in things at ranges that mattered.
not to mention the 3 really, really good British tanks. nigger you need to fuck right off.
OH YEAH, AND THE ALLIES WON THAT WAR, REMEMBER?
>>30101361
Goddamn you really aren't grasping the deep battle concept at all.
Leta us the US-Mexico border. There are areas of that border which are more heavily protected than others. You could throw all you resources at the hard points, which generally have reason to be well defended but that automatic losses . You could focus on finding a weak point which would then cause the defender to refocus on that point.
Or you could hit the whole Goddamn Goddamn border till you break through because the defender can't spread themselves too think without creating more weaknesses trying to to plug on or several.
Every time someone mentions human waves it's more akin to human river or fire hose. They keep coming but it's much more concentrated than its made to sound
>>30102494
kek
>>30102494
>german engineering
>>30102157
>active camouflage
Go back too your vidyas buddy.
>>30102105
>Tanks REQUIRE infantry support that can keep up with themselves.
Thats more of a "total war" sort of situation where you can more easily expend infantry finding targets than waste precious tanks
>>30101142
>it's just BAE trying to jew our MoD big time.
You mean OBRUM, a Polish company, is trying to jew your MoD.
>>30101505
>Why the fuck where operational losses that fuck huge? aren't American aircraft supposed to last longer?
Russians like to forget most of Germany's airforce was on the Western Front.
>>30100974
Tom Clancy: End War
Spam Helos
>>30101205
Do you know how hard it is to kill a moving tank using an aircraft with no bombsite, PGM, or avionics? Even back in the 40s tanks had fantastic protection against shrapnel, and were big hunks of metal that protect its crew a mechanical systems from overpressure. So unless your bombs managed to land within a few yards of your target, something that was impossible to do consistently unless you were a skilled pilot flying a dive bomber, that tank is rolling on.
>>30101770
>Saw it moving and firing, touched it and looked inside.
No, you didn't. The only one that 'existed' was a dolled up CV90120.
>>30102565
Deep battle isn't much of a tactic. For one, it only works when you've got numerical superiority. Significant numerical superiority. For another, it's costly as each breakthrough is going to get men killed. Finally, it's risky because you're splitting your forces. If you can't take out all of the enemy's support assets their strategic reserve will destroy each breakthrough in detail. Defensively it's vulnerable to attrition tactics as the frontline is weaker than traditional frontlines.
>>30102611
Back then, Germany was cut off from important resources and the leadership demanded constantly better tanks. Factories were bombed, the young and elderly conscripted. The engineers did their best, but between the narrow time frames and substandard parts, it wasn't enough to supply the Heer with the equipment in necessary quality and quantity.
>>30102860
The typical tactic was to carpet bomb the area but there was occasionally new tactics like gun runs against the weaker tops and anti-tank rockets.
>>30103068
Um...do you have any proof of this?
>>30101148
>>30101155
>>30101183
>>30101192
>>30101216
>>30101235
>>30101263
>>30101293
>>30101316
>>30101616
>>30101621
>>30101623
>>30101624
>>30101319
This board has some pretty civil discussion.
Also I think the tank should like, have titanium armor, and it has the ability to do power slides away from tank rounds
>>30100974
>Polish are bringing back the concept
it's just cardboard now
and probably will remain cardboard forever, given how our military couldn't even make 2 corvetes
>>30101189
There are certain military doctrines that have remain unchanged since the dawn of organized warfare.
>>30100974
I love the idea of light tanks but i feel like it should be smaller than this that way it'd be better for use in urban environments
>>30101686
>WWI
>Bayonets mattering in the grand scheme of things
Pick one.
>>30101390
Nice troll
>>30101616
minus US and Allied weapons shipments and vehicles stalin would have been fucked.
like arab armies soviet armies command structures lived in fear od 'the boss' and were virtually paralysed by a command structure more afraid of stalin then the germans since no one has mentioned it the winter war and .subsequent events well illustrate soviet 'meat grinder' tactics and a basic lack of any concern for the quantity zerg lives lost since only the queen stalin and his immediate hive in Moscow.
Fuck if they had not teamed up with hitler to invade Poland they would probably have fucked that up to.
.
>>30101162
Adaptive camouflage is BAE
>>30101795
>Its a cyclical thing. Next century they would be mirin on the Russians and hating on the Germans.
yeah, no. Poles will always view Russians as cancer. We view the Germans as old rivals who we have friendly bantz with nowadays, considering they sell us old Leopards to help preserve our soverignity from Gommisar Putin
![jmg5q6b[1].webm](https://i.imgur.com/haTexur.jpg "jmg5q6b[1].webm")
>>30103157
>power slides away from tank rounds
>He doesn't know
>>30101597
How would you hide one of these tanks from seismic detectors?
>>30101732
>This isn't naval combat
That just weakens your argument actually. The disparity in penetration ability in light vs heavy tanks is far less than the disparity between a destroyer and a battleship.
>>30105114
>preserve our soverignity
what sovereignty, cuck?
