Tanks
#2
Posted 27 June 2008 - 14:09
#3
Posted 27 June 2008 - 14:21
48 65 6c 6c 6f 2c 20 77 6f 72 6c 64 21
#4
Posted 27 June 2008 - 15:44
#5
Posted 28 June 2008 - 01:23
Tanks will always be more vulnerable to their enemies than their enemies are to most things, but all the same the role they play in actually establishing and moving fighting fronts is something that can't really be replaced. After all, if you get rid of tanks, what are you left with to fill their place? Well, nothing really. APCs are even more vulnerable, and you can't just drop infantry onto every enemy position and you certainly can't send them to assault fixed or dug-in positions. They still need to be supported, and tanks have actually been found invaluable in Iraq for providing overwatch to infantry teams while securing positions in urban environments, especially with remote weapons systems, and form very effective mobile cover.
Tanks are the most mobile, effective and heavily-armed aspect of ground combat, and I think their vulnerability is actually somewhat overestimated. Armour designers have come up with materials and designs of extreme durability, and there are tales of tanks surviving absolutely insane amounts of damage and making it back to base, then being repaired and ready to go a couple of days later. Active defence systems currently being rolled out like Shtora, Arena, Drozd, laser lock warning receivers and Trophy all have the promise of decreasing the effectiveness of ATGMs to a significant degree, tanks can support each other, and tanks are persistent. There's no other way to put it. For holding or driving a line, anything else isn't going to cut it. So while their designs may change slightly, I don't think we'll see the end of them for a long while yet.
Quote
#6
Posted 28 June 2008 - 01:46
#7
Posted 28 June 2008 - 08:02
But tanks are fast, armored, and can dish out their own punishment very well. I don't think that will ever be taken completely from combat.
#8
Posted 28 June 2008 - 11:08
@Topic:
No fixed defense can thwart an incoming division.
Most especially if it's mechanized armor.
Which include tanks.
So tanks will be around.
Until wars become things of the past (You wish!) :stickattack2:
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#9
Posted 28 June 2008 - 11:36
#10
Posted 28 June 2008 - 18:11
#11
Posted 29 June 2008 - 12:44
#12
Posted 29 June 2008 - 13:31
Unless they get replaced by mechs. >)
#13
Posted 01 July 2008 - 04:54
Overdose, on 29 Jun 2008, 21:31, said:
Unless they get replaced by mechs. >)
Mechs??
1.Simply run a strong wire on the mech's legs...
...and it will always trip. Once it trips, infantry will rush to the cockpit of the mech...
Mechs' legs are their Achilles' Heel.
2.Mechs have high profiles. So camouflage won't do. It will stick out of the crowd (like a dead nun on a snowy street). Unlike tanks, you can have it as low as possible, so it can hide on bushes.
So mechs will not be feasible.
So tanks will be around in many many many different variants to suit any operation.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#14
Posted 01 July 2008 - 09:35
mechs would be awesome but i agree with TPAM
Mike
#15
Posted 01 July 2008 - 10:09
Edited by Rayburn, 01 July 2008 - 10:09.
#16
Posted 01 July 2008 - 11:11
Mechs, while cool, just don't have an advantage. That's why we probably won't see them, at least not in the 'battlewalker' sense, in the foreseeable future.
Quote
#17
Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:46
however this a bit of fiction and in theory it is imposible to make a mech
#19
Posted 01 July 2008 - 16:21
However lets consider this: tanks are massive targets. In a city environment infantry with any sort of anti-tank weapon will possess a much greater advantage. When operating in the field, there is a need to maintain aerial superiority or otherwise they will be destroyed by any number of air-launched anti-tank weaponry.
Though on the other hand, tanks have always found themselves under threat by various developments, even in World War I. So I will say this: tanks will in the foreseeable future, will always find a role in a conventional battlefield, but provided that...
a) Air superiority is confirmed
b) That fighting does not take place in confined spaces
#21
Posted 01 July 2008 - 23:39
#22
Posted 02 July 2008 - 00:36
So what I'm saying is that they will change slowly into someting more useful, as opposed to just quickly and simply going obselete.
-Boidy
#23
Posted 02 July 2008 - 02:27
markintellect, on 27 Jun 2008, 9:21, said:
They said the exact same about ICBMs, but do yous see us fighting with only missiles? Nope. Even then once someone gets an anti satellite weapon, there goes your satellite!
But I don't think the tank will become obsolete. There will always be advanced in armor, weapons, engineering and there will definitely be a role that a tank will need to fill. The tank will just evolve, like cavalry or infantry weapons or warships.
Edited by Cuppa, 02 July 2008 - 02:28.
#24
Posted 02 July 2008 - 04:21
markintellect, on 27 Jun 2008, 9:21, said:
Former president Ronald Reagan will be pleased, if we have that now.(but we don't).
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#25
Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:08
Quote
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users