Daily Mail: Putin's new 'super tank' leaves West totally outgunned

[Berkut]

We were just on a modern battlefield where infantry found it useful to up armor humvees by bolting on metal plates. It seems odd to think that tanks are obsolete just a few years later.

I think that it is more likely the next battlefield opponent will be more like Iraq than Russia, China, or Germany.

Humvees are not battlefield weapons at all.

They were uparmored in an attempt to protect them when they are NOT on the battlefield.

They not at all intended to be used in combat, up armored or not.

And the effort, btw, was a failure. Humvees were replaced by MRAPS, for use in areas where IED attacks were expected.

[The Brain]

The infantryman is obsolete because now we have cheap plentiful weapons that can kill him.

Except that we do not, in fact, have such things. Killing infantryman is actually quite hard. They are small, easily concealed, and generally pretty smart and good at evading weapons.

For a given unit of infantryman, it is quite difficult to render it combat ineffective.

You still see infantrymen marching tall around the battlefield in tight formations. They didn't have to change their way of fighting and disappear into holes. Just like other things won't ever adapt to changes in opposing weaponry and still be relevant.

[alfred russel]

Humvees are not battlefield weapons at all.

They were uparmored in an attempt to protect them when they are NOT on the battlefield.

They not at all intended to be used in combat, up armored or not.

And the effort, btw, was a failure. Humvees were replaced by MRAPS, for use in areas where IED attacks were expected.

I think your definition of "battlefield" is rather narrow if it excludes the territory where the enemy is launching a substantial number of its ground based attacks.

[Eddie Teach]

Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.

The modern day battlefield is a lot more diffuse though.

[Zanza]

Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.

The modern day battlefield is a lot more diffuse though.

More diffuse than kilometer deep trenches with barbed wire, mine fields, poison gas and constant artillery barrages? Millions of men died in WW1, all the current battlefields are just skirmishes compared to that.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think your definition of "battlefield" is rather narrow if it excludes the territory where the enemy is launching a substantial number of its ground based attacks.

Ok but on that definition any form of transport is a battlefield weapon.

[Berkut]

Humvees are not battlefield weapons at all.

They were uparmored in an attempt to protect them when they are NOT on the battlefield.

They not at all intended to be used in combat, up armored or not.

And the effort, btw, was a failure. Humvees were replaced by MRAPS, for use in areas where IED attacks were expected.

I think your definition of "battlefield" is rather narrow if it excludes the territory where the enemy is launching a substantial number of its ground based attacks.

Sticking an IED in the road doesn't really make the road a "battlefield" in the context we are talking about...

[alfred russel]

Ok but on that definition any form of transport is a battlefield weapon.

I don't think that a humvee is a battlefield weapon; it is a means of transport. But the example shows that even limited battlefield armor is still valued, even with the increased offensive firepower in the modern age.

[Eddie Teach]

Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.

The modern day battlefield is a lot more diffuse though.

More diffuse than kilometer deep trenches with barbed wire, mine fields, poison gas and constant artillery barrages? Millions of men died in WW1, all the current battlefields are just skirmishes compared to that.

Those trenches were filled with men to kill, rendering artillery more effective at killing them.

[Berkut]

Ok but on that definition any form of transport is a battlefield weapon.

I don't think that a humvee is a battlefield weapon; it is a means of transport. But the example shows that even limited battlefield armor is still valued, even with the increased offensive firepower in the modern age.

Of course, just like having your ships have some armor is still valuable even if you don't build battleships anymore.

That doesn't suggest that battleships really are a good idea though.

[alfred russel]

Sticking an IED in the road doesn't really make the road a "battlefield" in the context we are talking about...

Those IEDs on roads went a long way to pushing us out of Iraq even after investing thousands of lives and a trillion + dollars there. If you guys don't consider that part of the battlefield, perhaps your definition is a bit too narrow.

[garbon]

moisturized drone bumblebees.

Autocorrect?

[Malthus]

moisturized drone bumblebees.

Autocorrect?

Either that, or advanced bio-warfare. 

[Berkut]

Sticking an IED in the road doesn't really make the road a "battlefield" in the context we are talking about...

Those IEDs on roads went a long way to pushing us out of Iraq even after investing thousands of lives and a trillion + dollars there. If you guys don't consider that part of the battlefield, perhaps your definition is a bit too narrow.

That makes no sense.

Just because IEDs are an effective way to make someone want to bail on a conflict doesn't make the road a battlefield. I think our definition is just fine.

We are not talking about counter-insurgency operations. If we were, arguing about the utility of the MBT as a primary weapons systems would be even more silly, since it clearly is NOT when it comes to COIN operations.

[The Brain]

Is anything a battlefield with your definition? What about love?