http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910052/British-intelligence-chiefs-warn-Government-Vladimir-Putin-s-new-super-tank.html
This story has languish written all over it.
Tanks, how quaint.
QuoteThe new Russian main battle tank is designed to protect the vehicle's crew
I stopped reading here.
Wow. Do the russians really think tanks still rule the battlefield? That's so 20th century.
Do you know what a really revolutionary tank looks like?
It is a drone, computer controlled instead of remote controlled, it is 24 inches by 12 inches, it can burrows underground until his target is within sprint distance, it carries a 10 inches single shot EFP explosively formed penetrator, which no known armor mixture can stop.
But you dont even need a drone. Any anti tank aerial munition can take out ANY tank. Deploying tanks on the modern battlefield without achieving and maintaining air superiority is ridiculously suicidal.
And then, even if your air defense keeps enemy aircraft away, light infantry carries a little toy called Javelin that can take out any tank as well.
Tanks today are like battleships. Completely obsolete.
I like that if you read the article, all the "revolutionary" stuff is completely uninteresting.
ZOMG THE RUSSIANS MADE A TANK THAT ISN"T DESIGNED TO KILL ITS OWN CREW???? WE ARE FOOKED!
I'm gonna hold back from commenting until we have a report form Languish's defence correspondent, sir Hockney.
Air power bitches.
QuoteThe new Armata is the first Russian tank which considered the crew's ability to survive
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2016, 10:37:27 AM
I like that if you read the article, all the "revolutionary" stuff is completely uninteresting.
ZOMG THE RUSSIANS MADE A TANK THAT ISN"T DESIGNED TO KILL ITS OWN CREW???? WE ARE FOOKED!
Yeah, that was a bit amusing. One of the photos of the new tank appears to be a group of T-72s. The new "low profile" is three feet taller than it's predecessors. Two feet taller than the Abrams. The new tank may very well be an improvement over the old ones, but I doubt it will be "revolutionary". The French had a tank with an unmanned turret back in the 1950's.
More interesting is the new APCs. The possibility of a Russian APC that can't be disabled by machine guns is a bit more intriguing.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2016, 01:58:08 PM
More interesting is the new APCs. The possibility of a Russian APC that can't be disabled by machine guns is a bit more intriguing.
Have you checked what Sam Harris thinks about Russian APCs?
Uh, no. I don't get my opinions from podcasts.
Probably built based on stolen US and NATO nations tech.
Quote from: Siege on November 06, 2016, 10:22:16 AM
Do you know what a really revolutionary tank looks like?
It is a drone, computer controlled instead of remote controlled, it is 24 inches by 12 inches, it can burrows underground until his target is within sprint distance, it carries a 10 inches single shot EFP explosively formed penetrator, which no known armor mixture can stop.
But you dont even need a drone. Any anti tank aerial munition can take out ANY tank. Deploying tanks on the modern battlefield without achieving and maintaining air superiority is ridiculously suicidal.
And then, even if your air defense keeps enemy aircraft away, light infantry carries a little toy called Javelin that can take out any tank as well.
Tanks today are like battleships. Completely obsolete.
Why would it move underground?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2016, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2016, 03:37:29 PM
Why would it move underground?
Hard to shoot.
It can't spot things either. A weapon that can't only take out tanks if they are within "sprint distance" aren't much use. Siege has described a very expensive mine, he's also unaware there are lots of ways to stop an anti-tank missile.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2016, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2016, 03:37:29 PM
Why would it move underground?
Hard to shoot.
he's also unaware there are lots of ways to stop an anti-tank missile.
Yeah I am sure he hasn't had as nice a view of the modern battlefield as you.
Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2016, 09:08:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
he's also unaware there are lots of ways to stop an anti-tank missile.
Yeah I am sure he hasn't had as nice a view of the modern battlefield as you.
Siege probably doesn't even know how many action points it takes to fire a Javelin.
Look I know Siege says some pretty absurd things on this board about many different things but surely his many years of service in two different modern militaries gives him some cred on these kinds of things.
Besides the last time I recall the US using tanks was the 1990 Gulf War.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 10:13:12 AM
Look I know Siege says some pretty absurd things on this board about many different things but surely his many years of service in two different modern militaries gives him some cred on these kinds of things.
Besides the last time I recall the US using tanks was the 1990 Gulf War.
:huh:
Quote
:huh:
Meaning that he is probably correct that they are not really that useful in modern warfare.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 10:24:17 AM
Meaning that he is probably correct that they are not really that useful in modern warfare.
You don't remember us using tanks in Iraq? :huh:
(https://lobelog.com/wp-content/uploads/Iraq-War-US-tanks-620x350.jpeg)
E: Wrong quote.
QuoteBesides the last time I recall the US using tanks was the 1990 Gulf War.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 10:13:12 AM
Look I know Siege says some pretty absurd things on this board about many different things but surely his many years of service in two different modern militaries gives him some cred on these kinds of things.
It gives him cred on how he fought, I don't think it gives him much cred on the imminent domination of the new battlefield with burrowing robots.
Once you get out of his area of direct expertise, he goes straight to cuckoo land on almost all topics.
Quote
Besides the last time I recall the US using tanks was the 1990 Gulf War.
You haven't been paying much attention.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 10:28:31 AM
Not really.
Dude, really? You don't at least remember the mechanized columns rolling down Iraqi highways with idiot embedded reporters hanging off of every other vehicle right at the beginning? There were tanks all over the place.
My memory of how tanks are used since the Gulf War:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl7.alamy.com%2Fzooms%2Fd6967d9f6fda47cda98fb7cf94dfd408%2Ftwo-us-army-tanks-patrol-a-street-in-the-eastern-baghdads-shiite-suburb-h1n86t.jpg&hash=20f769d6dd80c34f4e37ead1aeddebc4ddb5ae2d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fphotos%2Flooking-across-alquds-street-us-army-m1-tanks-guard-the-concrete-picture-id81281949%3Fs%3D594x594&hash=1207f08bc24bc0ddff675eae0c93b006b6a87cef)
http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/combat-tanks/tank-detonates-ied-in-sadr-city-iraq/1454509460001
We used tanks in Iraq during the second invasion, and used them throughout the counter-insurgency war as well.
They have somewhat limited use in counter-insurgency of course, but they are hardly useless.
And there is a reason we only fight counter-insurgency wars these days - because our conventional capability is great enough nobody bothers to challenge us conventionally.
That hardly means that our conventional capabilities are not useful - almost exactly the opposite in fact.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 10:27:29 AM
Once you get out of his area of direct expertise, he goes straight to cuckoo land on almost all topics.
Many visionaries were thought to inhabit cuckoo land. Everyone from Tesla to Newton to Einstein to Jim Jones, David Koresh, and L. Ron Hubbard has been dismissed by some as crazy.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 10:27:29 AM
Once you get out of his area of direct expertise, he goes straight to cuckoo land on almost all topics.
Many visionaries were thought to inhabit cuckoo land. Everyone from Tesla to Newton to Einstein to Jim Jones, David Koresh, and L. Ron Hubbard has been dismissed by some as crazy.
This is true.
I am willing to confidently say that Siege will not end up in the set of "thought to be crazy" people that is inhabited by the likes of newton or Einstein.
I sure hope he doesn't end up in the set inhabited by Hubbard or Jim Jones.
My impression is that apocalyptic claims for a single new weapon system (such as the title of this thread), and claims that entire weapon systems are "obsolete", tend to be both overblown.
Tanks are part of a combined arms strategy. They have strengths and weaknesses; they can be countered by dedicated weapons systems, hand-held, fired by aircraft, or in mines. Trying to charge modern infantry with tanks alone is suicide, if they are not already broken in morale and are prepared, trained and equipped to first-world standards, and particularly if they are part of an all-arms defense.
All this has been true since at least WW2 if not earlier.
I'm not convinced the evidence is there yet that some modern technology makes them obsolete, any more than I am convinced that some improvements in speed, armor or armament makes any particular model totally dominant.
<pontificate>
I actually find the idea that the MBT could be obsolete, or soon to be so, not at all far fetched.
As the lethality of weapons increases over time, the question is whether or not the "armor" (and by this I mean any counter system employed, whether that be physical armor, ECM, etc., etc) available can increase along with it making the current system continue to be viable.
History very clearly tells us that the answer at some points in time is often "no". Knights went away when infantry personal weapons became more deadly faster than the armor a horse can carry could improve to counter it. That saw the end of cavalry and the armored knight as a primary battlefield weapon system.
Tanks came along when the ICE was invented that allowed one to move around a weight of armor it was not at all possible that an individual infantry weapon could defeat, and so that became a primary weapon system for going on about 100 years now...but that will change as well. Perhaps it has changed already, but we haven't had enough of a sustained "experiment" to know for sure. We could be in the opening days of WW2 as it relates to the capability of the battleship, for all we know, were we are heavily invested in a weapon system that is mostly obsolete, but we don't really know it for sure yet.
But it would be foolish to stop building battleship in 1935 without the benefit of hindsight. You simply do not know. And we don't know right now.
Once thing I am kind of confident on though is the idea that the modern high intensity battlefield is largely an unknown. So much technology has changed since the last time true conventional forces of modern militaries have clashed in a sustained conflict, that I suspect whatever the "truth" is, nobody actually knows it yet.
Hopefully we don't ever find out.
</pontificate>
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
Many visionaries were thought to inhabit cuckoo land. Everyone from Tesla to Newton to Einstein to Jim Jones, David Koresh, and L. Ron Hubbard has been dismissed by some as crazy.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
Many visionaries were thought to inhabit cuckoo land. Everyone from Tesla
Well yeah--once they went acoustic, it all went to shit.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
Many visionaries were thought to inhabit cuckoo land. Everyone from Tesla to Newton to Einstein to Jim Jones, David Koresh, and L. Ron Hubbard has been dismissed by some as crazy.
Don't dare to put Tesla in the same sentence as Newton and Einstein. :mad:
I don't know anything about modern military equipment and tactics, but I could imagine that the best equipment and tactics for fighting a counter-insurgency in the Middle East or fighting a mechanized army in the Northern European plains could be different. Maybe main battle tanks work better in the latter environment than the former.
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
I don't know anything about modern military equipment and tactics, but I could imagine that the best equipment and tactics for fighting a counter-insurgency in the Middle East or fighting a mechanized army in the Northern European plains could be different. Maybe main battle tanks work better in the latter environment than the former.
Crazy talk, you're as loony as Siege!
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
I don't know anything about modern military equipment and tactics, but I could imagine that the best equipment and tactics for fighting a counter-insurgency in the Middle East or fighting a mechanized army in the Northern European plains could be different. Maybe main battle tanks work better in the latter environment than the former.
Maybe. But they seem like easy targets to me.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Maybe. But they seem like easy targets to me.
No idea. The armies of the world seem to still consider them a vital part of their combined arms strategy.
My amateur view is that they can move fairly fast through rough terrain (compared to non-mechanized infantry), have very powerful weaponry that can fight just about any ground target, have good sensors and communications to operate together with other units, and I would assume their armor means that they have a higher survivability than just about every other ground unit (in open terrain at least, cities are probably different). Every weapon that can hit a main battle tank seems to be able to hit other ground units as well with probably more devastating effects.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 11:43:22 AM
<pontificate>
I actually find the idea that the MBT could be obsolete, or soon to be so, not at all far fetched.
As the lethality of weapons increases over time, the question is whether or not the "armor" (and by this I mean any counter system employed, whether that be physical armor, ECM, etc., etc) available can increase along with it making the current system continue to be viable.
History very clearly tells us that the answer at some points in time is often "no". Knights went away when infantry personal weapons became more deadly faster than the armor a horse can carry could improve to counter it. That saw the end of cavalry and the armored knight as a primary battlefield weapon system.
Tanks came along when the ICE was invented that allowed one to move around a weight of armor it was not at all possible that an individual infantry weapon could defeat, and so that became a primary weapon system for going on about 100 years now...but that will change as well. Perhaps it has changed already, but we haven't had enough of a sustained "experiment" to know for sure. We could be in the opening days of WW2 as it relates to the capability of the battleship, for all we know, were we are heavily invested in a weapon system that is mostly obsolete, but we don't really know it for sure yet.
But it would be foolish to stop building battleship in 1935 without the benefit of hindsight. You simply do not know. And we don't know right now.
Once thing I am kind of confident on though is the idea that the modern high intensity battlefield is largely an unknown. So much technology has changed since the last time true conventional forces of modern militaries have clashed in a sustained conflict, that I suspect whatever the "truth" is, nobody actually knows it yet.
Hopefully we don't ever find out.
</pontificate>
But individual infantry weapons *could* defeat a tank. Even in WW2, there were bazookas, panzerfausts, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust
By the 1970s, there were wire-guided man-portable missiles that could (and did) knock out tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M14_Malyutka
This did not make tanks obsolete, though. Just added complexity to the rock-paper-scissors of an all-arms battle. The Israelis, who lacked such missiles, eventually overcame the Egyptians, who had them - after learning a sharp lesson about the vulnerability of their tanks. The Israelis still use tanks, though.
Now, it could well be that some future tech makes tanks wholly obsolete. Maybe it is already here, and kept secret from us.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
I don't know anything about modern military equipment and tactics, but I could imagine that the best equipment and tactics for fighting a counter-insurgency in the Middle East or fighting a mechanized army in the Northern European plains could be different. Maybe main battle tanks work better in the latter environment than the former.
Maybe. But they seem like easy targets to me.
and if you bring one to the octagon you're at quite the disadvantage too...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 07, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
I don't know anything about modern military equipment and tactics, but I could imagine that the best equipment and tactics for fighting a counter-insurgency in the Middle East or fighting a mechanized army in the Northern European plains could be different. Maybe main battle tanks work better in the latter environment than the former.
Maybe. But they seem like easy targets to me.
and if you bring one to the octagon you're at quite the disadvantage too...
QuoteBut you dont even need a drone. Any anti tank aerial munition can take out ANY tank. Deploying tanks on the modern battlefield without achieving and maintaining air superiority is ridiculously suicidal.
And then, even if your air defense keeps enemy aircraft away, light infantry carries a little toy called Javelin that can take out any tank as well.
So says a professional soldier with years of actual combat experience :mellow:
Again, none of that is truly new. Moving tanks around if you don't have air superiority was already a problem in WW2; man-portable tank-killers already existed then, too.
Yet tanks were still useful.
Now, it could be argued that modern weapons are simply so powerful that they have tilted the balance fundamentally.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2016, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 11:43:22 AM
<pontificate>
I actually find the idea that the MBT could be obsolete, or soon to be so, not at all far fetched.
As the lethality of weapons increases over time, the question is whether or not the "armor" (and by this I mean any counter system employed, whether that be physical armor, ECM, etc., etc) available can increase along with it making the current system continue to be viable.
History very clearly tells us that the answer at some points in time is often "no". Knights went away when infantry personal weapons became more deadly faster than the armor a horse can carry could improve to counter it. That saw the end of cavalry and the armored knight as a primary battlefield weapon system.
Tanks came along when the ICE was invented that allowed one to move around a weight of armor it was not at all possible that an individual infantry weapon could defeat, and so that became a primary weapon system for going on about 100 years now...but that will change as well. Perhaps it has changed already, but we haven't had enough of a sustained "experiment" to know for sure. We could be in the opening days of WW2 as it relates to the capability of the battleship, for all we know, were we are heavily invested in a weapon system that is mostly obsolete, but we don't really know it for sure yet.
But it would be foolish to stop building battleship in 1935 without the benefit of hindsight. You simply do not know. And we don't know right now.
Once thing I am kind of confident on though is the idea that the modern high intensity battlefield is largely an unknown. So much technology has changed since the last time true conventional forces of modern militaries have clashed in a sustained conflict, that I suspect whatever the "truth" is, nobody actually knows it yet.
Hopefully we don't ever find out.
</pontificate>
But individual infantry weapons *could* defeat a tank. Even in WW2, there were bazookas, panzerfausts, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust
By the 1970s, there were wire-guided man-portable missiles that could (and did) knock out tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M14_Malyutka
This did not make tanks obsolete, though. Just added complexity to the rock-paper-scissors of an all-arms battle. The Israelis, who lacked such missiles, eventually overcame the Egyptians, who had them - after learning a sharp lesson about the vulnerability of their tanks. The Israelis still use tanks, though.
Now, it could well be that some future tech makes tanks wholly obsolete. Maybe it is already here, and kept secret from us.
Those weapons were not effective enough to really impact the overall viability of the tank though.
Panzerfaust had less than a 100m range. Bazookas maybe 200m, at best. And even the bazooka was hardly a sure kill, if you could hit.
Those weapons, in WW2, were better than nothing, but not actually decisive. They were reasons why it was dangerous for armor to go up against infantry in close terrain - they were not effective against tanks in general.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2016, 02:30:12 PM
Now, it could be argued that modern weapons are simply so powerful that they have tilted the balance fundamentally.
This - if it is the case, it is because the capability of modern man portable weapons is radically greater than what was around in WW2, compared to the capability of the tank to resist them.
They have radically greater range, and some of them have astounding killing power. They are not really comparable to WW2 infantry AT weapons in anything but the grossest sense.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 02:34:36 PM
Those weapons were not effective enough to really impact the overall viability of the tank though.
Panzerfaust had less than a 100m range. Bazookas maybe 200m, at best. And even the bazooka was hardly a sure kill, if you could hit.
Those weapons, in WW2, were better than nothing, but not actually decisive. They were reasons why it was dangerous for armor to go up against infantry in close terrain - they were not effective against tanks in general.
The bazooka and the panzerfaust were certainly relatively primitive weapons of limited range. But the wire-guided missiles of the '70s were a generation more sophisticated, and more readily comparable with today's weapons, used in open terrain; and actual war experience with them (in the Arab-Israeli wars, notably in '73) did not render the tank obsolete.
No question, today's weapons are more powerful yet. But then, so are today's anti-missile defenses. I don't think the balance has tipped so far, that use of tanks is comparable to armored knights facing muskets and cannon.
That will come with some sort of paradigm shift in weaponry - perhaps miniaturization of military drones to the point where they are the size of insects or smaller. The modern army of the future could be swarms of these things, acting more like an infestation than a traditional army with a front line. Against that, tanks will be totally useless.
I wonder why the Iraqis didn't have a bunch of Saggers when we rolled in. At least i never read of any being encountered.
Note: I am NOT arguing that tanks are obsolete - just that the idea that they might be in not implausible.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2016, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 02:34:36 PM
Those weapons were not effective enough to really impact the overall viability of the tank though.
Panzerfaust had less than a 100m range. Bazookas maybe 200m, at best. And even the bazooka was hardly a sure kill, if you could hit.
Those weapons, in WW2, were better than nothing, but not actually decisive. They were reasons why it was dangerous for armor to go up against infantry in close terrain - they were not effective against tanks in general.
The bazooka and the panzerfaust were certainly relatively primitive weapons of limited range. But the wire-guided missiles of the '70s were a generation more sophisticated, and more readily comparable with today's weapons, used in open terrain; and actual war experience with them (in the Arab-Israeli wars, notably in '73) did not render the tank obsolete.
Well yeah, that is how it works - there is a progression of technology, and at some point, that progression becomes enough that the old paradigm is done. This is what happened in the previous examples I cited of similar shifts, with the obsolescence of the armored knight and the battleship.
Neither of those systems went away over night, they both had a (in hindsight) rather obvious progression of increasing lethality of the superseding system that only eventually made it clear the dominant system was done.
The real key is something you mentioned above - the modern capability of ATM excels in open ground - the very terrain where the MBT previously dominated itself.
Again, I don't *know* that this MBT is obsolete. But if it is, it would look a lot like what it looks like right now...
I would not consider the 70's Arab-Israeli wars as too definitive as well. There are a lot of other variables going into that conflict. And even at that, there are those who consider that to be the first premonition that the age of the tank was coming to a close...
Quote
No question, today's weapons are more powerful yet. But then, so are today's anti-missile defenses. I don't think the balance has tipped so far, that use of tanks is comparable to armored knights facing muskets and cannon.
No, but it might be comparable to armored knights facing blunderbusses and simple cannons. Or maybe not.
It does seem to me though that the ability of armor to improve its defense is not keeping up with the increase in lethality of guided weapons. You say they are getting better, but are they really? The improvements seem very incremental to me, and difficult to really make work consistently, mainly due to the radically increased accuracy of the weapons systems. There is only so much you can do to counter a direct hit with a modern ATGM, especially with their top-attack capabilities.
A huge difference between now and the 70s though is that fucking everything is guided now. Guided weapons or plentiful and cheap, and as long as you can reliably hit a target, the targets ability to not get killed by it seems very low relatively.
Quote
That will come with some sort of paradigm shift in weaponry - perhaps miniaturization of military drones to the point where they are the size of insects or smaller. The modern army of the future could be swarms of these things, acting more like an infestation than a traditional army with a front line. Against that, tanks will be totally useless.
Well, yeah, but I think tanks could be obsolete even if we don't have moisturized drone bumblebees.
It is possible they are in fact obsolete right now, and we just won't know it until we get into a fight and find out...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2016, 03:26:50 PM
I wonder why the Iraqis didn't have a bunch of Saggers when we rolled in. At least i never read of any being encountered.
I think they did, but we did a pretty damn good job of suppressing them.
Plus the M1 Abrams is pretty awesome.
As someone whose job it was to crew a ATGM, they are pretty incredible weapons. But...they do require you to be able to (at least at that time):
1. See the target
2. Track the target for the flight time of the missile.
#2 is pretty tough. Our TOW-II had a range of 2000m, which is pretty damn far. But it took the missile about 16 seconds to cover that range. That is a long fucking time to sit there keeping your reticle on the target while people shoot at you....
Of course, modern missile are more likely to be fire and forget...
My understanding is that the advent of firearms did not render armored cavalry obsolete overnight or even particularly quickly - armored cavalry (at least breastplate and helmet) was still around even into Napoleonic Era. There is always a trade off between protection on the one hand, and mobility and cost on the other.
Armored cavalry was not obsolete until the 19th century. About 600 years after guns and cannon were invented. The Israelis have had a lot of success with their Trophy system to intercept anti-tank missiles. There is no particular reason to think that such a defense can't stop a TOW missile or a Javelin.
I think that at the end of the day it's a matter of asymmetry. A tank is still surely a useful asset. You need to still take territory no matter how much stuff you can kill over the horizon, and a fast, armored and powerful fighting vehicle is just too useful to do that. But at some point these super-expensive weapon platforms will become trivial to kill reliably by cheap and easily operated systems, making them maybe not really obsolete-obsolete, but just too expensive to deploy and replace.
I agree with Berkut that this point seems to be coming closer. Fire-and-forget ATGMs don't seem *that* ubiquitous yet though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2016, 03:32:51 PM
My understanding is that the advent of firearms did not render armored cavalry obsolete overnight or even particularly quickly - armored cavalry (at least breastplate and helmet) was still around even into Napoleonic Era. There is always a trade off between protection on the one hand, and mobility and cost on the other.
Indeed - but I would argue that the time of the knight as a dominant battlefield weapon was long over before the Napoleonic era.
That doesn't mean there isn't still a role for armor by any means, just like there was a role for the battleship long after it was no longer the decisive naval weapons system anymore. We were still lobbing 16" shells at our enemies well into the 80s, after all.
But no one would argue that the battleship was not obsolete in the role it was built for, and the era of warfare being dominated by the armored knight was over...well, a good long time before the Napoleonic Wars, anyway.
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2016, 03:44:30 PM
I think that at the end of the day it's a matter of asymmetry. A tank is still surely a useful asset. You need to still take territory no matter how much stuff you can kill over the horizon, and a fast, armored and powerful fighting vehicle is just too useful to do that. But at some point these super-expensive weapon platforms will become trivial to kill reliably by cheap and easily operated systems, making them maybe not really obsolete-obsolete, but just too expensive to deploy and replace.
I agree with Berkut that this point seems to be coming closer. Fire-and-forget ATGMs don't seem *that* ubiquitous yet though.
I don't think it is just ATGMs though, it is also the prevalence of guided air launched weapons as well. There is nothing really magical about the ATGM for that matter compared to a cannon...except that it is just a lot easier to employ. It pretty much takes a tank to tote around a 125mm main gun capable of killing a tank.
A ATGM can be carried by something much lighter, hence the much lighter (and of course cheaper) weapon system now has a reliable way of killing the heavy and expensive system, along with guided bombs, air launched ATGMs with really astounding range and accuracy, etc., etc.
If tanks are obsolete, it won't be because of ATGMs alone, or because of Hellfire-type air launched missiles alone, or even precision laser guided bombs, but rather the sum of all these that just makes the modern battlefield completely lethal to anything that can be hit - and that comes down to size and detectability. Something MBTs are pretty terrible at...
I could actually imagine a return to the Napoleonic Wars, where light infantry is again the dominant battlefield weapon system...albeit ultra high tech light infantry supported by over the horizon sensor and weapons systems...
Quote from: Drakken on November 07, 2016, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
Many visionaries were thought to inhabit cuckoo land. Everyone from Tesla to Newton to Einstein to Jim Jones, David Koresh, and L. Ron Hubbard has been dismissed by some as crazy.
Don't dare to put Tesla in the same sentence as Newton and Einstein. :mad:
You Tesla fanboys are tiresome.
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.
The infantryman is obsolete because now we have cheap plentiful weapons that can kill him.
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2016, 04:10:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:13:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2016, 04:10:34 PM
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.
Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:07:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:13:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2016, 04:10:34 PM
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.
:yes: 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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:15:44 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2016, 04:21:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:20:30 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:20:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:15:44 PM
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...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2016, 04:25:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2016, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2016, 04:21:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:31:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2016, 04:25:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:29:19 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:29:19 PM
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.
Is anything a battlefield with your definition? What about love?
Don't you want someone to care about you?
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2016, 04:39:23 PM
Is anything a battlefield with your definition? What about love?
Love is only a battlefield to young people, which rules out Languish.
Love is a battlefield the way down Hiroshima was a battlefield.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2016, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2016, 04:39:23 PM
Is anything a battlefield with your definition? What about love?
Love is only a battlefield to young people, which rules out Languish.
But Languish could be a battlefield. Seeds and Mart have been effective at getting people to want to bail.
Iraq - M1 Abrams tank massive cook off after ATGM hit by IS near Qayyarah 24/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWXIhXJktmM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWXIhXJktmM)
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2016, 04:45:00 PM
But Languish could be a battlefield. Seeds and Mart have been effective at getting people to want to bail.
I merely outsource. The Free Market fucknuts should appreciate that.
Quote from: citizen k on November 07, 2016, 05:18:32 PM
Iraq - M1 Abrams tank massive cook off after ATGM hit by IS near Qayyarah 24/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWXIhXJktmM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWXIhXJktmM)
I always figured they flew a lot straighter than that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2016, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2016, 04:45:00 PM
But Languish could be a battlefield. Seeds and Mart have been effective at getting people to want to bail.
I merely outsource. The Free Market fucknuts should appreciate that.
I'm not following your analogy.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2016, 04:13:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2016, 04:10:34 PM
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.
Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.
Quite the contrary. An infantry man often rides in a min-tank.
You guys need another major Middle East adventure, so you can put this matter to bed.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.
:yeahright: Except for body armor, motorized armored vehicles, and counter-battery radars.
Other than all that, what have the Romans done for us?
Quote from: Habbaku on November 07, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
Other than all that, what have the Romans done for us?
They invented eating in bed.
Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2016, 06:45:19 PM
You guys need another major Middle East adventure, so you can put this matter to bed.
I think a better test would be to grant a number of M1s to Poland and let them invade Belarus.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2016, 09:01:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2016, 06:45:19 PM
You guys need another major Middle East adventure, so you can put this matter to bed.
I think a better test would be to grant a number of M1s to Poland and let them invade Belarus.
That on top of Poland reintroducing conscription, would be a perfect solution.
Mart can clear a minefield. Armed only with a stick and his trusty Potato companion.
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 07:08:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.
:yeahright: 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 07:08:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.
:yeahright: 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..."
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
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?
Quote from: The Brain on November 08, 2016, 01:46:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on November 08, 2016, 01:46:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2016, 08:15:08 AM
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.
(https://s15.postimg.org/t58rlduij/theskinner.gif) (https://postimg.org/image/ojcnd18zb/)free picture hosting (https://postimage.org/)
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2016, 08:15:08 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2016, 08:40:06 AM
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...
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?
Russia disappoints. This is what we're all waiting for:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.moddb.com%2Fimages%2Fmods%2F1%2F12%2F11495%2FMammothTankProRender.jpg&hash=c13ee5fe5cef0386a2a6e2977c53d203585a492e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.moddb.com%2Fimages%2Fmods%2F1%2F12%2F11998%2FApocUpdate.jpg&hash=76e6254414dc9b96ac467957e9bed76005c8dbaf)
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2016, 09:54:28 AM
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.
Yep, I very much agree Tamas.
Once it is clear that more armor doesn't help, the logical conclusion is to scale back to very little armor - just enough to stop general purpose weapons, rather than weapons specifically designed to combat your particular weapon system.
What is interesting is how that would actually play out though. Certainly smaller, lighter vehicles one would presume?
While it doesn't seem particularly hard to imagine that the MBT is just too vulnerable, it is hard to imagine what replaces it...Smaller tanks? Not tanks at all? Something else entirely?
Survivability is a movable feast. No sooner had they put on V-hulls for IEDs and sidebars for RPGs, they found the roofs were vulnerable from building-launched attacks in urban combat. You can't just add more armour, because agility is just as important a part of survivability. So modular armour has become popular, but you still have to know what you're facing before you set out. Like police officers choosing between stab-proof and bullet-proof vests.
Smaller, lighter vehicles have mainly become popular for urban combat and navigating deserts. But neither of those may be a focus of future land combat. Speaking to manufacturers at a recent defence fair, they said they were seeing a distinct trend away from smaller armoured vehicles and back to tanks. And certain nations that had been tight with their armoured vehicle purse strings recently were shelling out again. No pun intended.
Well, it's refreshing to see that not everyone has lost their minds and gone all Incan torpedo boat.
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2016, 10:00:52 AM
While it doesn't seem particularly hard to imagine that the MBT is just too vulnerable, it is hard to imagine what replaces it...Smaller tanks? Not tanks at all? Something else entirely?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2F2zganmx.jpg&hash=07539dbb6e1fe583ca5c18a9c78bac7b5e458994)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAYW6RS0.jpg&hash=5503137316532f51330437af88fd7cbee0c46e50)
Quote from: Syt on November 08, 2016, 11:47:52 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAYW6RS0.jpg&hash=5503137316532f51330437af88fd7cbee0c46e50)
Ah yes, the unstoppable behemoth.*
*Until it meets the first bridge. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2016, 12:07:26 PM
*Until it meets the first bridge. ;)
That's why you design it to operate as submersible, too. :rolleyes: The Cliffs of Dover might be tricky, though. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2016, 08:16:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 08, 2016, 01:46:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
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.
Thank you. :)
Quote from: Syt on November 08, 2016, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2016, 12:07:26 PM
*Until it meets the first bridge. ;)
That's why you design it to operate as submersible, too. :rolleyes: The Cliffs of Dover might be tricky, though. :hmm:
then it goes into its (adolf hitler) mecha-form
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2016, 10:00:52 AM
What is interesting is how that would actually play out though. Certainly smaller, lightervehicles one would presume?
While it doesn't seem particularly hard to imagine that the MBT is just too vulnerable, it is hard to imagine what replaces it...Smaller tanks? Not tanks at all? Something else entirely?
Mecha. Piloted by depressed 14 year old Japanese.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 08, 2016, 03:01:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2016, 10:00:52 AM
What is interesting is how that would actually play out though. Certainly smaller, lightervehicles one would presume?
While it doesn't seem particularly hard to imagine that the MBT is just too vulnerable, it is hard to imagine what replaces it...Smaller tanks? Not tanks at all? Something else entirely?
Mecha. Piloted by depressed 14 year old Japanese.
Was there a joke in there somewhere screaming to get out?
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2016, 01:37:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2016, 07:08:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Artillery was effective in WWI. Artillery has gotten better since then; infantry defenses not as much.
:yeahright: 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..."
That is one of the worst analogies in languish history, and that is saying a lot.
It is similar to comparing the Springfield rifle used by the US in WWI and the M16. The M16 is clearly better, but is the advance as dramatic as the advance between WWI artillery and the artillery deployed today? I'm arguing no.
So how many Russian "super weapons" have we in the West duped ourselves into fearing? And what was the first one? MiG-25?
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2016, 06:00:09 PM
So how many Russian "super weapons" have we in the West duped ourselves into fearing? And what was the first one? MiG-25?
From what I understand of this there's nothing particularly revolutionary about this tank. They've updated a bit of technology, made some give-and-take design decisions, and are touting this as the next new revolutionary thing when it at best is incremental.
The hole unmanned turret/ auto loader thing is - from what I understand form a few (online) conversations with tankers - good in some ways, bad in others and neither unprecedented nor revolutionary.
So yeah, I'm thinking "super weapon" is just Russian propaganda bought by whoever has an interest in buying it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2016, 06:20:27 PM
So yeah, I'm thinking "super weapon" is just Russian propaganda bought by whoever has an interest in buying it.
Well, we are talking about Hami quoting the Fail concerning the Russians, so, yeah, the shit is piled at least three layers deep. :lol: