Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
With that line of thinking you could say what is the point of any weapon?
Anything can be countered and any war ultimately has to end at some point in order for there to be any benefit to anyone.
So the fact of the matter is that while it is undesirable in a sense might IS right, it doesn't matter what you think or how good your argument is, if your opponent decides they are going to shoot you in the face, they win the argument.
So weapons are necessary even if you are not an aggressor.
Just because a tank can be defeated does not make it pointless.
If you are to take or defend ground you have to have 'boots on the ground', infantry, there is simply no way around this.
Infantry are clearly very soft, very slow and easily killed with the wide range of horrorifying weapons that we have developed in our long history of killing each other for land, resources and ideology.
Tanks are immune to many of the weapons which kill infantry, so by having a tank you have now created a requirement for your opponent to have a weapon which can counter your tank and it isn't enough to have the weapon you have to actually use it, so this isn't paper, rock, scissors, there is skill involved.
Tanks are fast, can move over rough terrain, push through road blocks, they can fire high explosive rounds which can demolish or clear buildings, they can destroy any other vehicle including other tanks.
While they are some times used in open battles vs other tanks etc their original and perhaps primary role is one of infantry support, the tanks protect the infantry by clearing buildings, drawing fire, creating smoke screens etc.
An effective fighting force is a combined arms force with many different parts with different roles, strengths and weaknesses, so each side tries to use the right tool for the right job and gain from its strengths while covering its weakness with other tools etc.
Saying that a infantryman can defeat a tank is jumping ahead, there are many layers of protection (like an onion) that must be defeated before that point.
First, dont be there.
Good intelligence, scouting, strategy and tactics etc can allow you to avoid unfavourable engagements.
Second, dont be seen.
Effective use of cover and terrain, time of day, weather, range, information sharing etc can all allow you to engage without being detected.
Dont be targetted.
Again, positioning, use of cover, use of smoke, working together with other forces etc can all allow you to not be targetted. It doesn't matter if an enemy can see you if they cannot get into a position to effectively fire on you without being killed by some one elses zone of control etc.
Dont be hit.
Similar things again, be a moving target, be entrenched, use terrain to pop out fire and return to cover, remove line of sight with smoke, night / night vision / thermal vision, engage the enemy fiercely putting them under pressure and encouraging errors etc. There are all sorts of variables at work.
Dont be penetrated.
Armour, it can be very difficult to penetrate the armour of a tank, some have active protection systems which can intercept missiles etc which are fired on them. There is also reactive armour which is designed to be destroyed and soak up the energy of the incoming round to reduce its effectiveness. Armour can be sloped encouraging rounds to bounce off. Armour can also be layered, you might have a mesh or grill / grate construction outside of the main armour so that an explosive round detonates away from the main armour.
Dont be killed.
Things like spall liners, escape hatches, fire suppression, designs which direct ammo explosions away from the crew, breathing gear, medicial gear, chemical / biological weapon protection and designs which lend themselves to easy repair etc can all help to allow crews to avoid being killed even if their tank is penetrated or disabled and for tanks which are damaged to be repaired and returned to action asap.
Sorry I meant to say near the start that ideally you wouldn't goto war at all, but you dont get to decide if someone else attacks you.
The Tank has been on borrowed time for years.
The biggest problems facing modern systems is accuracy of smart weapons, loiter ability, fire and forget.
Even battlefield helicopters are struggling in a hostile environment.
One of the systems used by the RAF in a couple of conflicts is Brimstone, this is a fairly highly modified hellfire and designed to fired in swarms of missiles.
it was designed for Tornado to combat Russian tank and AFV formations.
it has the ability to identify priority targets. Tank, BMP, Tanker etc.
The Ukrainians now have the ability to launch these from a truck or small vehicle.
The weapons are pretty much fire and forget and decimate armour.
You can fire 20 odd missiles in seconds on rapid fire, each programmed for specific targets.
then those tanks etc that survive now face the next vehicle with another 20 missiles to be launched in seconds.
life for Tankies is not really a long time.
the thing is you still need armour to protect against 30 mm etc and to attack targets.
Future systems are fast and smaller but also still have Tanks, Challenger 3 will have active defence systems.
A lot of the faults the Russian tanks have, NATO identified and fixed back in 1990’s.
Its one of the reasons Russian tanks are blowing turrets off.
@Fuentes they did, previous tanks kept ready use ammo forward, it was changed following Gulf 1.
Also current missiles do shred all Nato Armour
Brimstone etc does eat tanks.
Being in a tank is a waiting for a large bang thing.
Over the horizon missiles, drones and attack helicopters eat Tanks etc.
I know from exercises we carried out a four ship could launch a shit load of brimstone and Alarm anti radar.
On about Brimstone.
April-12-2011 Armored Vehicles Misurata
RAF Tornados and Typhoons armed with Paveway and Brimstone missile destroyed eight tanks just outside Misurata. This strike brought the total number of destroyed tanks, armored vehicles, artillery pieces, and air defense systems to over 100.44
May-24-2011 Coastal Radar Station Brega
A single dual mode Brimstone fired from an RAF Tornado successfully destroyed the radar station, without destroying an adjacent building.45
July-2-2011 Armored Vehicles Djebel Nafusa
An unknown number of Brimstone missiles were fired from RAF Tornados, destroying a regimen of T-55 tanks that had taken shelter from UK airstrikes in a narrow alley. None of the surrounding buildings were damaged, and no collateral damage was reported.46
September-1-2011 Vehicle Bani Walid
One Brimstone missile was fired at a fast-moving pick-up truck observed with a “large rocket pod.” The missile successfully destroyed the vehicle.47
September-4-2011 Ammunition Depot, Artillery, Vehicle Sirte
An unknown number of Brimstone and Paveway missiles were fired from RAF Tornados at “an ammunition depot nearby, as well as a self-propelled artillery piece and an armed pick-up truck.” The targets were successfully destroyed.48
September-7-2011 Armored Vehicles, Artillery Sirte
An unknown number of Brimstone and Paveway missiles “successfully destroyed four main battle tanks, three armored personnel carriers, a self-propelled gun, two other armored vehicles, and an artillery piece.”49
September-9-2011 MLRS, Vehicle Sirte
An unknown number of Brimstone and Paveway missiles successfully destroyed one multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) and one armed pick-up truck.50
September -15-2011 Armored Vehicles, Artillery Pieces Sebha RAF Tornados fired a salvo of Brimstones, the missile’s first operational salvo fire, destroying seven or eight armored vehicles. No collateral damage was reported.51
Lots of good comments here. I agree with @ChrisMaster69, the tank has been on borrowed time for a while now but still has its uses - and its strong advocates. They are pretty high maintenance, and quite effective on the forward edge of a battlefield when maintained AND supplied. My only personal experience with tanks has been recovering and towing them. There is nothing more exhilarating than driving a 63 ton retriever towing a 55 ton down a range road, knowing that you have the means to crush a Range Rover or anything else that gets in the way. Not that I would, but I could if I wanted to. That's empowering.
They are made to KILL RUSSIANS at the moment either by blowing them to pieces or running them over and squishing their guts out and they do a very good job of it.
@Red_Arrow LOL
Opinion
41Opinion
Most modern tanks have pretty hefty and advanced armor. And it’s designed in a way to either tank ( no pun intended ) tank shells and anti armor weapons or deflect it. And it can multiple hits to take a tank out.
on top of that they carry a lot of other stuff like smoke launchers and even anti rocket/Missile countermeasures. Infrared imaging, etc.
Their main guns have long range so they can take out targets far away like Artillery but far more mobile and less vulnerable tanks can be surprisingly well hidden. And aircraft can’t spot concealed tanks.
tanks are also usually always supported by either Infantry, lighter vehicles or both. So they are very rarely left undefended
on top of that not all infantry squads carry anti tank weapons and if they do it’s usually one or two guys.
and if facing infantry who don’t have anti tank weapons the tank will decimate them and even if they do it can still lead to them getting slaughtered.
tanks are also good at destroying building, fortified positions and pill box’s, lighter vehicles and other tanks.
they also are useful for Shielding infantry when advancing through open terrain
there's s lot of reason why tanks are nice to have.
like take for instance the enemy is fortified In a building. Rather then sending in infantry to clear it and lose men you could instead just have a tank level the building or force them out in the open where you can either gun them down or force a surrender or make them retreat them use the building yourself as a fortified position.
Not now with Javelins. One shot takes them out. They will have to make new tanks that they can't penetrate
1. Russian tanks are kinda old
2. SPAA and SP artillery's are better in every thing then just aa and artillery.
3. Infantry might carry AT weapons but with good armour the tank may need to be shot more often to kill.
4. Aircraft can't see concealed tanks.
5. A tank alone can turn an entire building into rubble if it has the shells.
6. Tanks get nice toys like infra red imagers, lots of smoke grenades even smoke shells.
7. They can do different tasks like mine clearing, infantry supporting, tow stuff.
8. Main battle tanks are pricy but other tank types are a lot cheaper i think (kinda why battleships are no longer used).
9. Speeeeeed.
10. They can bust fortifications.
They are not useless if they are used right and killing a tank isn't easy when it has active armour on top of reactive armour on top of steel armour on top of chemical armour and has a 122mm thick cannon with gyroscope stability or what ever its called that makes the tank gunner literally feel like he is playing on playstation.
I should sleep now
Russia has a few scuba tanks better than Abrams and go under water. But very few
Mobile artillery and armored Calvary. Mind they only tell you/us the success stories in Ukrainians taking out Russian tanks. And to be fair there are a disproportionate number of success stories than one might expect. This is dues to a number of factors. Even in WWII Russia prized quantity over quality when it came to making tanks. The US made javelins are a new technology russian tanks are not equipped to handle. Most of the destruction of these tanks is when they are blindsided or otherwise caught unaware - once they are dug in the situation changes..
But the fact remains that there are undoubtedly a lot of stories where the tanks win. They don't tell us those because morale is critical to a war and making anyone at all think the war is hopeless erodes the support and encourages surrender. We'll probably not hear of those until after the war is over..
As aircraft and other remotely operated military machinery advances, tanks are becoming less and less useful. They'll probably stick around for a while yet as not every country can afford to build high tech fighter jets or drones, but they'll be fewer in number as time goes on.
They were invented in a time when a bomber plane was literally just two guys chucking grenades out of the back, and now we have missiles specifically designed for them. As with every piece of military technology throughout history, their time will end.
Boys like a big boom boom.
Soldier boys like it even more. Do you really take away the toys from them?
A caravan should not be an obstruction for a tank. Just get over it... so to say.
Military equipment -like tanks- has several points. Examples:
. The major one is usually in front: at ''gun point''
. It enables governments to release money to the industry; where numerous happy workers now find happy jobs. So they pay income tax - that will fund the military
. Tanks seldom have a flat tyre
. Tanks usually have a long tube sticking out. It's a phallic symbol. You also see this in private cars (exhaust)
. If you go to school in a tank, you won't get shot easily
Other points: ...
(have a good day :) )
First of all, tanks aren't sitting ducks for anti tank units, they have reflective armor in the front which makes them so much more immune than you think. They provide a very strong force to crush things, carry people, destroy machinary and other tanks. They can be used as "push armor" so in a situation when the infantry is pinned down by automatic machine guns, they can advance and either take care of them or infantry can advance slowly behind them til they get out. Simply a single tank can turn a losing infantry vs infantry battle to a winning one. If protected from aircrafts, they can be a monster.
Tanks are great AS LONG AS you have air superiority, and your enemies lack Javelin missiles, smart drones, and modern self-guided artillery.
Unfortunately for Russia, none of those things are true, and their tanks are just target practice. They are lucky we didn't loan Ukraine any A-10s...
Sure U have a right to ur own opinion. But is it valid in a war?
Maybe I've have a small about of education in this department. And that's fine. I'll try to make it short. A aircraft needs a lot of Intel to know where the tank is positioned. In order to strike. So that leaves the ground soldiers to communicate. But if they can't, then a FGM-148 Javelin, AT4, BGM-71 TOW, and the SPG9 are utilized. But if theirs no anti-tank. That's total distribution. Look I'll add a video of something less war like, and you tell me if this guy were added a gun on top. Would of it been worse? And he did it with cheep material.
Tanks are good mobile artillery, and they're very intimidating to civilians, but tanks reached the peak of their effectiveness during WW2, and have been on a slow decline ever since. Of course, there are certain tank-loving generals who will always champion their favorite toy, but new technology is making them more vulnerable.
u nowadays... they are mostly for show
tanks can be really scary for some people, and it is also a very clear sign of occupation
and in the case of Russia, Putin really wanted to give soldiers a sense of safety and security, after all... he really tricked a lot of soldiers into this invasion
other tanks though, more modern ones... they really are just another piece of artillery with an effective range and they can be really useful for the right army and the right missions
They're basically obsolete these days.
Drones can do the same job - supporting infantry - more cheaply and more effectively.
Militaries really just keep tanks around because they're simple and dependable. For example, it's not hard to imagine someone developing some kind of electronic countermeasures that make drones, cruise missiles, etc all completely useless (eg. by jamming the control or navigation systems over a wide area). Tanks would at least be something to fall back on.
Clears freeway traffic. Bit pricey. But if you can afford it it looks effective.
Wow, that's a lot of cops!
If this is the chase I remember it was one bullet that stopped him.
.😯 .
Rolling over trenches. Bringing big guns in close, screening small arms fire for advancing infantry.
Demolishing buildings.
I get your point though, they're not exactly winning the war here. Those Javalins are pretty good at what they do.
They look good in parades don't they? :)
I see red flags.
Umm does one really need to explain the point of a tank? It’s a mobile fortress, goes on any terrain, has a massive fucking gun that can gut a building, lots of little guns, carries troops behind a shit ton of armour, which offers a certain level of protection, need I go on?
It's macho rhetoric. It's like saying, "Put down those droids and fight me like a man, just like they did back in Hitler's days."
They used to be a really effective tool but you are right that they are now vulnerable to a shoulder fired weapon. I guess they still have a psychological effect on people. they show up on your doorstep and it must be pretty scary.
Mobile artillery is useful in war. With the ability to target missiles precisely nowdays, though, maybe tanks are less necessary than they once were.
But if tanks are vulnerable, so are other weapons delivery systems.
Well would you rather have to fight someone with a gun or someone with a tank? Even 50 people would be no match for a tank unless they had some serious weapons
Pretty much just a over powered vehicle for decimating foot soldiers and small buildings. its basically massively over compensating for indiviual man power.
Well not a lot these days, most advanced countries militaries are gradually retiring them, all but for very specific tasks.
Being awesome.
They serve as defense for infantry with and behind them.
They are used to destroy equipment, vehicles and structures.
The U. S. military, in particular the Marines, is asking this very question.
They are mobile artillery, anti-tank and anti personal platforms designed to travel across battlefields quickly exploiting and making break throughs on mass while being difficult to destroy.
unless the opponent is another well-armed Army and not a bunch of rioting citizens, they might have trouble... But against a line of Cars, they just roll over them, People with guns? ROLL over them
So many Anti-tank weapons now, I don't know if they have a place
@purplepoppy Russian Army is Stupid and they don't know how to use Tanks but don't think all the Countries also have same stupid Army
Mobile artillery. Being able to relocate your artillery on a battlefield quickly gives you an advantage in battle. Also being able to defend against small arms fire is an advantage.
They're really effective to gain land dominance. The more and better tanks you have, the better you can push through their borders.
And they act like shields to those infantries too.
Historically they had purpose now they're just expensive ornaments (deactivated, £20,000 )
They are used in capturing a territory and then keeping a territory. They also provide cover for troops. You must have tanks to capture land. Air force alone can't win a war or capture a territory
Problem is war these days is mostly just nuke measuring contests
No one ever uses them. They are a deterrent so a another country doesn't go to far.
They're well-resistant and equipped with lots of weapons but i personally don't think it's perfect for battles in urban area
Its ability being armoured to deliver a premptive strike from A to B.
Used to kill and maim as many as possible and the destruction of property too.
The Sherman and Tiger tank would like to have a word with you
Tigers were defensive tanks. Too big to use in battlefield
Two strategies , German better stronger tanks harder to destroy.. Russian cheaper smaller tanks that were replaced before they were destroyed.
I am not even answering this question it is way to dumb. 😉
Is it fucking ever.
If you followed WW2, you'll see how important tanks were and still are on the battlefield.
anti-tank missiles have come a long way, and made tanks much less effective than they used to be.
They are a huge mobile gun. Not much more.
They're great if your opponent is Iraqi
Lol you should read a book
They are Block Busters
I guess for small combat situations
To make people pancakes
They're extremely powerful in land wars.
To kill
To blow things up.
You can also add your opinion below!
