[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Leopard 2 A7 A1.jpg (545 KB, 1600x1200)
545 KB
545 KB JPG
The turret keeps getting stuff added on in every iteration. Is this even practical?
>>
>>62794407
tanks are pretty useless, the marine corps already got rid of them and the only reason the army hasnt is becasue the factory is in some congressmans district and they keep sending they army tanks and the army keeps telling them they dont want them and they keep saying here are more tanks haha, isnt democracy fun?
>>
File: turtle 3.png (302 KB, 537x411)
302 KB
302 KB PNG
>>62794407
>Is there a point at which a tank is too chonky?
Yes
>>
>>62794425
>the marine corps already got rid of them
That's because they're shifting back into their role of amphibious troops, instead of being the same shit as the army but with a separate command structure, navy, and airforce.
>>
>>62794407
A tank becomes too chonky when it no longer can fit into a railcar. As long as you haven't hit that limit, you're golden.
>>
>>62794407
Yes, it means they're obsolete.
>>
>>62794696
>Both sides in the Ukraine war are crying out for more tanks all the time
>Every major advance is spearheaded by tanks
>(You): tANkS aRe ObsOlETe
I swear the vehemence and pervasiveness of this dumbass shit feels just like 'jeets forcing a meme. Are our enemies trying to inject retarded ideas into the military discussion communities?
>>
>>62794425
the marine corp got rid of tanks because their primary goal is being mobile.
>>
>>62794407
NATO countries have been operating multiple classes of tanks that weight in excess of 65-tons for four decades now. They been used in a half dozen conflicts on two continents, both conventional wars and counterinsurgencies. If that weight was impractical, we'd know it.
>>
>>62795492
that weigh* in excess
>>
>>62795492
they have been*

Fuck, I need to go to bed
>>
>>62794809
Probably is. They believe AI and drones will win wars. Nothing but AI and drones. No artillery. No EW. No logistics. No armored nor transports. No intel. You get the gist of it.
>>
File: 270862-CC-BY-ND-2.0-8.jpg (893 KB, 2048x1357)
893 KB
893 KB JPG
>>62794407
FAT ASSES
>>
>>62794809
>>Both sides in the Ukraine war are crying out for more tanks all the time
Have you ever wondered why their older tanks have disappeared?
>>
>>62795537
Because the war's been going on for almost 1000 days?
>>
>>62795575
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-armored-vehicle-losses-ukraine-1970420
>Ukraine's military said on Thursday that Russia had lost a total of 9,014 tanks since February 2022, including 17 over the previous 24 hours. Moscow lost 33 armored personnel carriers between Wednesday and Thursday, Kyiv said, bringing its tally of total Russian armored fighting vehicle losses to 18,002.

Yes, tanks are dead.
>>
>>62795586
>Russian shitboxes
>any indication that tanks are obsolete
No. Just no.
>>
>>62795586
The tank losses in WW2 were also high, and yet here we are 80 years later and everyone is still using tanks.
>>
>>62795596
Western tanks haven't performed any better so far...
>>62795598
>The tank losses in WW2 were also high, and yet here we are 80 years later and everyone is still using tanks.
Because those losses were mostly inflicted by other tanks so they responded by building more tanks, sure. But the drones are the main threat to modern tanks now, and they are far more cheaper
>>
File: volksturm.jpg (83 KB, 800x576)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>62795616
This isn't the first time tanks have encountered cheap, disposable, mass-issued anti-tank weapons.
>>
>>62795616
>tank losses in ww2 were mostly from other tanks
lol based retard
>>
>>62795647
>comparing direct fire weapons to drones that have zero risk of exposing yourself to enemy fire
Yeah, you're just coping.
>>
>>62795666
>NO IT DOESN'T COUNT



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.