3 ms·
No---an effective anti-tank weapon is a ditch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench You might need to
by slongfield 5y ago
No---an effective anti-tank weapon is a ditch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench
You might need to make a bigger one for a modern tank than a WWII tank, but the tools to make big holes have been around for a while.
- greedo 5y agoYou'd need an awful lot of ditches, since tanks have high mobility. And were actually designed to counter trench warfare tactics.
- ethbr0 5y agoMBTs have standardized dimensions. Trenches have flexible dimensions. You show me an MBT, and I'll design a ditch it can't cross. (Which is the entire point of combat engineers. But as you point out, given the speed of modern MBTs, it's easier to flank static anti-tank defenses like ditches)
- greedo 5y agoThe role of combat engineers isn't to stop tanks, but to funnel tanks and AFVs into kill zones. Since WW2 era gear can't really kill a tank, it's pointless. The best a CE could do would hope for a mine to damage a track.
- ethbr0 5y agoTurn it the other way around. The role of modern combat engineers is to get MBTs (and infantry) through obstacles. A ditch isn't very effective if the far side is dynamited into a slope.
- greedo 5y agoPotato Potahto. Sure on offense engineers are tasked with clearing obstacles, that's a given. On defense, the role is reversed.
- hereonbusiness 5y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmLFTSq-TE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmLFTSq-TE I guess you'd have to dig quite a deep trench for modern tanks.