4 ms·
It seems like the future of warfare is longe range (eg: firing missiles at tanks from across the horizon) or hyper short range (eg: troops clearing cities block
by pclark 4y ago
It seems like the future of warfare is longe range (eg: firing missiles at tanks from across the horizon) or hyper short range (eg: troops clearing cities block by block) — anything else seems like it'll get wrecked by either the precision of long range or the precision of short range stuff.
A tank isn't hyper mobile, isn't hyper accurate and isn't hyper long range. I don't get it's role — especially when it costs tens of millions and can be destroyed with either a $5k anti-armor launcher or from a missile fired across the horizon.
- jopython 4y agoLong range missiles are expensive. ATGMs require you to be closer (2 miles or less) to the target which means the operating crews are vulnerable to the same tanks and other mortar fire which they are trying to kill. I think long range artillery (> 50kms) is the solution.
- int_19h 4y agoThere's also drones to consider.
- Tsiklon 4y agoA tank is certainly more useful in the middle distance than at extreme range, or in tight spaces, there’s better choices of tool for those jobs guided artillery/rockets at distance and heavy auto-cannon clad infantry fighting vehicles like in the city. But not all warfare exists in either of those ranges. Tanks are great at assaulting enemy hard points, taking fire away from supporting infantry who can move in and cleanup the position after the tank has suppressed it or broken it open. It’s a heavy weapon of mobility and manoeuvre on the field. A tank’s role is that of heavy cavalry, designed to intimidate and break defensive lines in a charge across contested territory and to provide immediate direct fire on a target in support of advancing infantry. As the modern rifleman company is the descendant of line infantry of old, the tank is the descendant of the Cuirassier.