5 ms·

Tanks used correctly and in sufficient mass produces something called the Shock Effect of Armor. Smart munitions are getting more and more effective, but it's r

Tanks used correctly and in sufficient mass produces something called the Shock Effect of Armor. Smart munitions are getting more and more effective, but it's really hard to calmly lob missiles at a charging unit of tanks supported by artillery, infantry, CAS, etc. "Principle: armor in strength produces decisive shock effect The psychological shock effect that comes to troops on the receiving end of a massed armored assault is terrific. This effect radiates from the point of attack in concentric semi-circles, as do the waves from a stone dropped in the water near the edge of a millpond. If the attack is in strength, these shockwaves reach to the enemy division, corps and army headquarters. Shock effect gives armor part of its protection and hastens the disintegration of the enemy force attacked. The shock effect of the mass employment of armor varies as the square or cube of the number of tanks used. Attacking with armored strength too small to produce decisive shock effect often results in great losses and inconclusive results." https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/Historical/Principles.html https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/Historical... Simply put, they are pants-soiling terrifying spectacles of death and they prove overwhelming. Once significant momentum of a well-executed armored attack has been gained, they are difficult to slow or stop. Drone swarms may make this tactic obsolete, but we're not there yet.

throwaway1492 4y ago
Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of a $500 drone with the equivalent of a RKG-3 grenade to take one out is really the only relevant part of the question. Tanks are dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe Edit to add; "expensive to operate" was a bit of an understatement, the logistical support required for a tank company is tremendous, totally preposperous; 1000s of gallons of fuel a day, 3 types of ammo, support equipment and personnel.
- ckozlowski 4y ago
  To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can. When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - eftychis 4y ago
    Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
    - yding 4y ago
      If you're talking about DJI or equivalents they only have 30 minutes or so of flight time and can carry at most one bomb at a time. They can be useful in guerrilla situations but firepower wise it's not even in the same league as a tank with 40-60 cannon rounds and several thousand machine gun rounds.
      - wyldfire 4y ago
        What if the drone were so inexpensive and portable that you could consider it like you do ammunition? Then the flight time and payload is much less critical - it's just a pilot-able bomb.
        4y ago
motbob 4y ago
Battleships are pretty intimidating too. Still obsolete.

throwaway1492 4y ago

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of a $500 drone with the equivalent of a RKG-3 grenade to take one out is really the only relevant part of the question. Tanks are dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe Edit to add; "expensive to operate" was a bit of an understatement, the logistical support required for a tank company is tremendous, totally preposperous; 1000s of gallons of fuel a day, 3 types of ammo, support equipment and personnel.

ckozlowski 4y ago
To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can. When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eftychis 4y ago
  Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
  - yding 4y ago
    If you're talking about DJI or equivalents they only have 30 minutes or so of flight time and can carry at most one bomb at a time. They can be useful in guerrilla situations but firepower wise it's not even in the same league as a tank with 40-60 cannon rounds and several thousand machine gun rounds.
    - wyldfire 4y ago
      What if the drone were so inexpensive and portable that you could consider it like you do ammunition? Then the flight time and payload is much less critical - it's just a pilot-able bomb.
      - 4y ago

motbob 4y ago

Battleships are pretty intimidating too. Still obsolete.