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

[Ed Anger]

Mart can clear a minefield. Armed only with a stick and his trusty Potato companion.

[alfred russel]

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

Except for body armor, motorized armored vehicles, and counter-battery radars.

Have you seen what WWI level artillery did? Modern body armor would not be all that effective even back then, and I'm not even sure armored vehicles would be especially safe, though against modern artillery I'm certain they wouldn't be.

Take a picture of a modern infantry man on patrol vs. one in WWI, and the difference isn't so dramatic. At least compared to the actual cannons used in WWI vs. the Paladin.

[DGuller]

Have you seen what WWI level artillery did? Modern body armor would not be all that effective even back then, and I'm not even sure armored vehicles would be especially safe, though against modern artillery I'm certain they wouldn't be.

Take a picture of a modern infantry man on patrol vs. one in WWI, and the difference isn't so dramatic. At least compared to the actual cannons used in WWI vs. the Paladin.

I don't think all artillery casualties in WWI were caused by direct hits.

[Berkut]

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

Except for body armor, motorized armored vehicles, and counter-battery radars.

Have you seen what WWI level artillery did? Modern body armor would not be all that effective even back then, and I'm not even sure armored vehicles would be especially safe, though against modern artillery I'm certain they wouldn't be.

Take a picture of a modern infantry man on patrol vs. one in WWI, and the difference isn't so dramatic. At least compared to the actual cannons used in WWI vs. the Paladin.

This is like comparing the bit of lead at the end of an arrow with the bit of lead that comes out of a modern assault rifle, and saying "Meh, they are basically the same thing..."

[The Brain]

Have you seen what WWI level artillery did? Modern body armor would not be all that effective even back then, and I'm not even sure armored vehicles would be especially safe, though against modern artillery I'm certain they wouldn't be.

Take a picture of a modern infantry man on patrol vs. one in WWI, and the difference isn't so dramatic. At least compared to the actual cannons used in WWI vs. the Paladin.

I don't think all artillery casualties in WWI were caused by direct hits.

Think again. Why do you think they introduced steel helmets?

[Razgovory]

Have you seen what WWI level artillery did? Modern body armor would not be all that effective even back then, and I'm not even sure armored vehicles would be especially safe, though against modern artillery I'm certain they wouldn't be.

Take a picture of a modern infantry man on patrol vs. one in WWI, and the difference isn't so dramatic. At least compared to the actual cannons used in WWI vs. the Paladin.

I don't think all artillery casualties in WWI were caused by direct hits.

Think again. Why do you think they introduced steel helmets?

I thought it was caused by shrapnel, falling debris and other affects of indirect hits, but you seem to be proposing something different.  Why don't you tell the class what you think.

[grumbler]

Tanks are a bit like aircraft carriers; verging on obsolescent, in that they are increasingly vulnerable and one can see their replacement on the horizon, but still useful (and maybe irreplaceable) in certain scenarios.

Spending a lot of resources designing new ones seems inefficient.

[grumbler]

Have you seen what WWI level artillery did? Modern body armor would not be all that effective even back then, and I'm not even sure armored vehicles would be especially safe, though against modern artillery I'm certain they wouldn't be.

Take a picture of a modern infantry man on patrol vs. one in WWI, and the difference isn't so dramatic. At least compared to the actual cannons used in WWI vs. the Paladin.

I don't think all artillery casualties in WWI were caused by direct hits.

Think again. Why do you think they introduced steel helmets?

I'm presuming that this is a joke since it implies that a soldier's steel helmet would protect him against a direct hit by artillery.

[Razgovory]

Tanks are a bit like aircraft carriers; verging on obsolescent, in that they are increasingly vulnerable and one can see their replacement on the horizon, but still useful (and maybe irreplaceable) in certain scenarios.

Spending a lot of resources designing new ones seems inefficient.

Grumbler picks up the gauntlet.

free picture hosting

[Valmy]

Tanks are a bit like aircraft carriers; verging on obsolescent, in that they are increasingly vulnerable and one can see their replacement on the horizon, but still useful (and maybe irreplaceable) in certain scenarios.

Spending a lot of resources designing new ones seems inefficient.

Yeah. So I don't think we have much to fear from a Russian 'super' tank.

[Brazen]

I wouldn't poo-poo the idea too much. Investment in armoured vehicles by neighbouring countries has increased massively since Russia started sabre-rattling, and there has been an interest in MBTs over the lightweight urban warfare vehicles that have dominated the Middle Eastern conflicts. 

[Berkut]

I wouldn't poo-poo the idea too much. Investment in armoured vehicles by neighbouring countries has increased massively since Russia started sabre-rattling, and there has been an interest in MBTs over the lightweight urban warfare vehicles that have dominated the Middle Eastern conflicts. 

Indeed - I find the entire thing fascinating.

But the fact that they are designing new MBTs doesn't mean that MBTs are not verging on obsolete. The US designed new battleships long after their day was over. We had Montana class ships being laid down after WW2 started, for example (albeit never completed).

The Japanese Yamato class was built after the writing was on the wall for BBs, they just didn't know it at the time. Same with the US Iowa class ships - the role they were built for was obsolete before they ever come off the slipway.

Which isn't to say that they were not useful, they certainly were - just not really in  the role they were designed for to begin with.

I think the same is possibly true for MBTs.

Maybe not though - maybe active defense is going to work much better than we expect and the MBT really will have a new lease on life was the dominant conventional weapon system for another 50 years.

I actually also kind of wonder if the *kind* of fighting the MBT was made for is even going to happen ever again. That, of course, is radically more speculative on my part though...

[Tamas]

What would be fascinating to see if it did not mean the end of civilisation and the death of hundreds of millions, is to see how the current insane level of technological sophistication can be maintained during a proper long global war of attrition.

Does NATO have the capacity to keep all this smart weaponry running out of the factory doors like Shermand and the like in WW2? Could Russia have any hope to field their own high tech toys after the first stockpiles are exhausted?

[Syt]

Russia disappoints. This is what we're all waiting for:

[Tamas]

On tanks specifically, I am sure the tank is not obsolete. The massive MBT might be, but we will not know.

When it is so much easier to take a tank out no matter what protection it employs, maybe in WW3, countries will return to designs like the Sherman and the T-34, as opposed to doing a Tiger-like approach. So, decent, good designs, but with the priority of striking a compromise between survivability, combat power, and cost of production.

Kind of like the way how after a while cavalry just accepted there is no way they can put enough armor on to protect from firearms, and scaled back on the whole knights in shining armor thing.