>It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it. This has been a fact of warfare for almost a centu

>It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it. This has been a fact of warfare for almost a century. in fact it was so easy the US Government published a warfighter training video on how to do it, and it didnt even fill 15 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM Tanks had shock and awe value in nineteen sixteen. for the first time on the battlefields you had an imposing, lumbering, seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of forged iron that if left to its means, could obliterate hard targets like buildings and bunkers without much effort and keep advancing seemingly endlessly. if you could reason to stop them, the thought was perished by the overwhelming terror alone they imposed. by WWII most antitank technology had reached horrors unimaginable; being a tanker was objectively near suicide. the swedish bofors sabot rounds could not only pierce most german armor, but cook the occupants alive with a shower of boiling steel before they invariably detonated the ordinance on board. even smaller mines like the TM41 were enough to blow the road wheels through the driver and out the hatch. And if all that proves too technical, the Japanese tactic in WW2 was to simply hose tanks in petrol and light them ablaze. the only shock and awe of a 21st century tank is watching your tax dollars propel something with 0.6mpg