3 ms·
>We had man-portable ATGMs for decades, they didn't "lower the value of a tank". Of course they did, arguing anything else is complete lunacy, especially since
by constantcrying 3y ago
>We had man-portable ATGMs for decades, they didn't "lower the value of a tank".
Of course they did, arguing anything else is complete lunacy, especially since you later advocate for the usage of Javelins, which, if effective and available, obviously reduce the value of tank. They also have the imense drawback of exposing the soldier to enemy fire.
I don't even get your other points. Why would drone operators be hunted more than Javelin operators? Why would Javelin operators not have to worry about giving away their position? Why don't Javelin operators need infantry cover?
- dgroshev 3y agoATGMs or drones don't "reduce the value of tank" because there is nothing better than tanks for when you need mobile protected firepower. If you think being vulnerable in a tank sucks, try storming through a field on foot. Tanks' value doesn't come from their invulnerability. They weren't invulnerable since WW1, if ever. Their value comes from being better than alternatives. As for Javelins, Javelins don't need operators that have to sit still and blind, guiding their slow drones to targets. Javelins don't need dedicated operator teams, US army more or less hands them to infantry platoons as needed. Javelins don't need "infantry cover", their operators are infantry. Javelins are fire and forget, so you can shoot and immediately leave, unlike drone teams. Javelins don't require extensive training and fine skill. The only thing Javelins don't do is first person videos. See my original point about drawing wrong conclusions from footage we get to see.