Do armored vehicles still have a real place in war since every haji and his brother is packing RPGs, or are they just meme money sinks?
Do armored vehicles still have a real place in war since every haji and his...
Oh look, it's this thread again.
The role of armored vehicles has adapted and went back and forth for almost 100 years now. And some guy on the 4th channel is thinking he can debate them.
Tanks will be obsolete only when someone finds a better way of launching a fast deep attack that can't be halted easily by suppressive fire from artillery and automatic weapons, while also being protected against CBRN threats.
RPG effective range: 300m
120mm cannon effective range: 3km (officially 4ish)
Also, older RPGs can't pierce modern armor. Your worry isn't RPGs but ATGMs, which expose their position by illuminating, or can be fooled by thermal smoke, and finally, there is APS.
Also, this guy:
Do armored vehicles still have a real place in war since every haji and his brother is packing RPGs
It's actually very damn difficult to destroy a tank with an RPG/ATGM, for every single one of Al-Inbredi's liveleak videos there's dozens more where the projectile missed, didn't detonate, didn't penetrate, etc. and the Firing position got blasted. That' even ignoring that modern vehicles are being equipped with APS. If you want proof of this, look at the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. Even with the high loss rates, tanks are still instrumental in these fights.
I am pretty sure Ukrainian T-64s (especially the Bulats) are the only thing keeping them in the fight. It's the only place where they have parity. Though obviously they would be overrun by sheer numbers were Russia to invade. And that's ignoring air assets.
I like this picture, it's pretty
And still, best modern rpgs go for the gun tower instead where armor is typically lighter - because man portable missile launchers are fucking expensive special snowflake weapons.
Tanks are very, very hard to kill completely - if you don't count mobility kill, during which a tank is still a very fucking dangerous, near impenetrable bunker that your enemy will try to prevent from getting into your hands.
rocket propelled grenades were used in WW2 and yet people continue to build tanks even today
what do you think?
they thought tanks were obsolete in 1961 when the RPG was introduced, then again with the LAW, then the TOW
how did that turn out?
I don't know if I would go as far as saying that ATGMs are "special snow flakes." They are way more expensive, but the US fields Javelins and TOWs (including top-down attack variants) in significant numbers.
During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the defenders had access to a number of RPG-29s and Kornet ATGMs, so again, they weren't that rare.
This only proves the points stated earlier:
RPGs/ATGMs do pose a serious threat to carelessly used tanks
BUT well-used tanks are still extremely useful and have a number of counter-measures
in 1961 when the RPG was introduced
All weapons which came much earlier than the RPG-7 yet used the same principle - "fire a shaped charge warhead at a tank"
Depends on how fast anti rocket technology comes along. Things like an advance iron dome will make tanks and battleships a must.
I know some russian tanks have a feature that if you point a designator at it it'll pop smoke and it's turret will swing towards the source. For every advancement in offense there is an advancement in defense.
Drones are jammable until full automation. Then, yes.
The Israelis have this on the Merkava as well. Supposedly it worked for them well in their latest incursion into whatever ill-equipped, poor Arab country they attacked last.
Speaking of drones, the Armata plans to have a permanently-attached drone hovering above the tank to help with targetting, jamming, etc.
This, you can’t shoot down flying led
or are they just meme money sinks?