[GarvielLoken]

They won't. Armchair generals think that massive losses of tanks would mean that they are going away. In real life it does not mean that. In ww2 Soviet lost 76% of all tanks they produces during the war, 83,500. And they still choose a tank focued strategic doctrine after this fact during the cold war, and they knew better than anyone else how many tank losses they suffered during ww2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_...

So this war, the Yom Kippur, the Syria war, they have no news regarding tank losses. Tanks were never designed to be invulnerable, and their losses have never meant that they don't work. The Soviet and the Russians knows this. The west think that tank's will survive battle fields, but from a historical point of view that is a delusion. Tanks are still the least bad choice, they are faster and hit harder than infantry, which if you think AFV have it though against drone corrected artillery, infantry is a sheit site worse.

[the_only_law]

They utilized other recent events, including the Marine cooler opting to drop all their tanks (I’ll bet my father was thrilled at that)

But you’re probably right that this is an armchair general making guesstimations. He did have military experience, but not in any capacity that would make him an expert in tank warfare.

FWIW cavalry (as in my analogy) didn’t really die off for a very long time and was still useful in armies for some time, but they were not the symbol and main power of armies that they used to.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

The marines are dumping tanks as part of a re orientation to be a true marine island hopping force in the pacific. There's debate over whether this is a viable concept in total, but little debate whether tanks make sense in that environment.

[CamperBob2]

Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen?

[dragontamer]

Yes.

When there's 152mm 100lb shrapnel artillery bombs dropping all around you, the only safe location is inside of 200mm+ thick steel plates.

Or what? Are you going to hide inside of a trench all day, or get into a thin APC / IFV and get shredded before you even reach the front lines?

Armor still matters. The whole MLRS debate has demonstrated that the powers-that-be are worried about the artillery battle above all else (as is common in war, those 20km guns are called "the king of battle" for a reason).

Advancing, or retreating, to positions while 100lb shrapnel bombs scatter around you is only possible when inside of armor. APCs/IFVs have a bit, but Tanks have the most.

------

Walking around, on foot, with only a helmet and some kevlar is nothing compared to the amount of shrapnel that is in play in any of those warzones. The shear number of 152mm artillery rounds being used is insane, and plainly obvious from the terrain in any footage I've seen.

-------

Tanks also remain the largest direct-fire gun on the battlefield, and have repeatedly proven their usefulness. Drones fly at 50mph and can take 10+ minutes to reach position. (Air Force/support flies faster, but also has 10+ minutes of delay as the pilots prep and launch).

Artillery fires at much higher speeds, but still takes 1 to 2 minutes for the shell to land.

Tank guns? They fire and land near instantly upon the target. If you need immediate fire support, the only solution is a tank. All other forms of support have a significant delay. All other guns are way smaller (ex: Sniper Rifles or Browning Machine Guns can't kill enemy tanks, for example).

[closewith]

> All other guns are way smaller (ex: Sniper Rifles or Browning Machine Guns can't kill enemy tanks, for example).

This seems to ignore the existence of the ATGM?

[dragontamer]

ATGMs are single-shot and 50lbs. They're hard to carry around the battlefield, and the people carrying them aren't carrying much else.

Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 30mph or faster.

Finally, Tanks have 3000m to 4000m range. Javelin only has 3000m range, while NLAW only has 1000m range. The tank is faster, the tank is more maneuverable, the tank is better armored, the tank has more range, the tank has more bullets, the tank has bigger shots (120mm rounds blow a bigger hole in the enemy than Javelins do). When the tank fires, their shells travel at literally hypersonic (Mach5) speeds. There's various stories of how tank-commanders saw an enemy's ATGM, fires back with the main cannon, and pops their thermal-smoke grenades to avoid the missile.

At 2000m or 3000m range, its really hard to actually fight a competent tank crew. Even if you are provided with the best of the best weapons (an NLAW is fully outranged and outgunned)

To carry similar firepower to a tank, you'll need 40 troops, each carrying a 50lb Javelin into the battlefield. Sure, the tank can die to one Javelin, but your 40 troops can all die to a few 152mm shells... and troops don't have the luxury of sitting in a vehicle (troops carrying 50lb weapons move slower than the armored cars we call "tanks"). Nor do they have immunity to sniper rifles or machine gun fire.

And once you have those troops in position, there's still the problem of the innate slowness of the ATGMs compared to tank APFSDS / HE-frag rounds. Yes, rockets are fast, but tank-rounds are far far faster.

-------

No one can deny the shear offensive prowess of the tank on the modern battlefield. ATGMs are very good tools as well, but even they pale compared to a tank APFSDS round or HE-frag round from a tank.

Now those benefits are negated in urban environments. Close quarters combat, within 500m or 200m is common, as ambushes can be setup anywhere. But still, the tank's role is needed in these urban environments. The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).

[closewith]

> ATGMs are single-shot and 50lbs. They're hard to carry around the battlefield, and the people carrying them aren't carrying much else.

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.

> Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 30mph or faster.

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.

> To carry similar firepower to a tank, you'll need 40 troops, each carrying a 50lb Javelin into the battlefield.

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.

> and troops don't have the luxury of sitting in a vehicle (troops carrying 50lb weapons move slower than the armored cars we call "tanks").

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour.

> No one can deny the shear offensive prowess of the tank on the modern battlefield.

This seems to ignore all those denying the sheer offensive prowess of the tank in the modern world.

> The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).

This seems to ignore the existence of the recoilless rifle (and an uncountable number of mounted weapons).

Overall, I don't believe you have any first-hand insight or understanding of armour or combined arms operations.

[dragontamer]

I don't think any recoilless rifle can match the range, speed, flexibility, or penetration of say the M1147 AMP tank round.

But feel free to tell me which recoilless rifle that is comparable.

[relaxing]

> There's various stories of how tank-commanders saw an enemy's ATGM, fires back with the main cannon, and pops their thermal-smoke grenades to avoid the missile.

I call bullshit. Yes, a Javelin at maximum range takes 10 seconds to arrive, and that theoretically gives the turret time to traverse to target and return fire… Assuming the commander saw the puff of smoke appear and reacts instantly… with perfect knowledge of the distance of the engagement… and full confidence his countermeasures will be 100% effective…

Naw. Too big a risk to take out 2 dudes who just expended their only means to hurt you, and are already on the move anyway. His attached units can go after the ATGM squad.

[dragontamer]

Javelin? Not quite. But yes for sure with M47 Dragon systems. (Especially back then, if you killed the guy aiming the missile, the missile will almost certainly miss).

In any case, Javelin is thermal imaging and thermal smoke probably works as a countermeasure.

The speed of ATGMs is a major downside in any case, leaving room to react and for smoke countermeasures.

[omegaham]

A Russian tank using Russian "combined-arms" doctrine that sends me into a city completely unsupported? That's going to be a big "no" from me.

An American tank using American combined-arms doctrine? Well, it's not going to be a risk-free experience, but I'd rather be in the tank than be one of the bullet sponges who are fighting house-to-house to prevent the enemy bullet sponges from sticking an AT-4 out of a window.

As other people have noted, "survivability" doesn't really factor into military thinking so much as capabilities. Bullets are extremely lethal to infantrymen, but we still have infantry because infantrymen have capabilities that other equipment platforms do not have. The existence of machine guns doesn't remove the need for infantry; it just changes how they have to be used (more cover and concealment, more need for air, artillery, and tank support). The same is true for tanks - they have capabilities that no other platform can satisfactorily fulfill, so we will continue to have tanks even if anti-armor weapons become even more effective than they already are.

[PeterisP]

Would you prefer to climb into a IFV or a pickup-based technical instead?

Even with all the drawbacks and vulnerabilities, tanks have more staying power than other vehicles, and if you need to do an offensive where it's expected that quite a few of you will die no matter if you advance in vehicles or on foot (peer-level war it's not like insurgent control where having casualties implies a mistake or failure on someone's part) then tanks are the vehicles which allow your to continue advancing while taking fire and some vehicles are lost; a APC company or bunch of technicals can only evade and retreat when meeting serious resistance; tanks are needed to be able to punch through.

[tablespoon]

> Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen?

I wouldn't climb into a T-72 in the Russian Army, but not all tanks are T-72s in the Russian army.