What are tanks use for?

They are big and scary.

For raiding cockfighters houses of course.

to blow s*** up. and also, if you were a terrorist and saw a big ass tank driving your way, what would you do? probably get the f*** out of there.

They protect the healer and dps

They protect the healer and dps

Led_poison

Take down buildings I think.

Tanks blow s*** up and make insurgents run like frightened, little girls.

Other than that I suppose if we ever have a conventional war again, they'd be good at blowing up other armored units...

[QUOTE="Led_poison"]

They protect the healer and dps

WiiMan21

Tanks provide a mobile, protected platform for a heavy gun and several machineguns. They can deliver a great deal of firepower to a target, and survive hits from all but the heaviest weapons.

What are tanks used for on the modern battlefield? And wouldn't it be better to use gunships rather than a tank since they have more mobility and have the same amount of firepower (I think).Lonelynight

Even if true, a helicopter is way more expensive than a tank. Missiles are way more expensive than tank rounds. A helicopter also cannot defend an area the way a tank (or any land-based vehicle) can.

[QUOTE="Led_poison"]

They protect the healer and dps

WiiMan21

That reference predates World of Warcraft by a number of years.

For raiding cockfighters houses of course.

WiiMan21

:lol: This was funny, though.

Aren't tanks kinda obsolete on MOST battlefields? I mean attack helicoptors can destroy them from miles away, and then infantry can carry launchers which can reduce tanks to smouldering wrecks?

But the classical role of the tank was to support infantry, and vice versa.

Aren't tanks kinda obsolete on MOST battlefields? I mean attack helicoptors can destroy them from miles away, and then infantry can carry launchers which can reduce tanks to smouldering wrecks?

Urworstnhtmare

No, they are not. Helicopters can destroy tanks, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, helicopters are much more expensive than tanks. There are man-portable heavy anti-armor systems, like the Javelin, but the destructive power of a tank is still vastly greater than any infantry unit. Note that most Third World armies don't have weapons like the Javelin. RPG-7s are nearly a non-threat to a modern main battle tank.

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Aren't tanks kinda obsolete on MOST battlefields? I mean attack helicoptors can destroy them from miles away, and then infantry can carry launchers which can reduce tanks to smouldering wrecks?

Palantas

No, they are not. Helicopters can destroy tanks, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, helicopters are much more expensive than tanks. There are man-portable heavy anti-armor systems, like the Javelin, but the destructive power of a tank is still vastly greater than any infantry unit. Note that most Third World armies don't have weapons like the Javelin. RPG-7s are nearly a non-threat to a modern main battle tank.

Ok. What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?

I genuinly don't really know.

Tanks are also useful for smashing their way through tough terrain, over barbed wire, that sort of thing. Isn't there a special type of tank that can make a bridge over reasonable distances too?

Generally they are scary though, I'd run away fo sho.

Ok. What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?

Urworstnhtmare

Most infantry units are not highly mobile. Those that are motorized (trucks) or mechanized (APCs) are even more vulnerable to tanks, as they are much more visible. Now, that a tank can be destroyed by man portable weapons doesn't make it useless, since most weapons have no effect on it. Men and trucks can be destroyed by light weapons, but they're still useful. Javelin-type systems are not widespread. A US infantry company (about 120 mne) has six of them. A tank company has 12 tanks. Having a javelin does not guarantee a kill, just like firing a single bullet at a man does not guarantee he'll be killed.

Tanks are also useful for smashing their way through tough terrain, over barbed wire, that sort of thing. Isn't there a special type of tank that can make a bridge over reasonable distances too? Generally they are scary though, I'd run away fo sho.

MissLibrarian

The US Army has had bridging vehicles for years. They are often built on a tank chassis, but they would not properly be referred to as tanks. To be a tank, a vehicle requires a heavy gun in a turret. And yes, tanks are very intimidating. They're enormous, fast, and powerful. I'm very glad all the enemy tanks I ever encountered were already destroyed by aircraft or other tanks.

They're the ultimate assault unit. They're basically the only design that allows you to combine satisfactory levels of firepower, durability, mobility, maneuverability and affordability into a single package that works in tandem with infantry. APCs and other light vehicles don't have firepower or durability, gunships don't have affordability, other infantry lack durability, firepower AND mobility.

Also, it's entirely possible for tanks to shoot down helicopters. They're also capable of breaching the armour of navy warships with their main guns, which tells you a lot about how heavily built they are when they can take their own rounds to the front plates.

Soak up damage so your DPSs don't take too much so that your healers have an easier time managing the battle.

To protect the soldiers when stuff like this happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugk4Q3bZzaQ

And for blowing S*** up.

Providing support for infantry, destorying other armored threats, and holding a position. After all, helicopters and aircraft can't hold a position and footing on the ground. They'll be forced to retreat, refuel and reload sooner or later, not to mention they are far more expensive than a conventional tank.

So everyone in this thread is assuming its a tank vs insurgents.

What about tanks vs other tanks? or vs aircraft?

They are big and scary.

IronBeaver

I also read online (can't find the correct article :x ) where a Canadian Tank was hit by an IED so large it left a crater in the ground and the tank bounced and came back down and the tank was practically unscathed (or wrecked; but only the driver was injured with a hip fracture) and the battle that followed was quick and violent- cause the tank's guns still worked.

So everyone in this thread is assuming its a tank vs insurgents.

What about tanks vs other tanks? or vs aircraft?

TehFuneral

They're used to fight for your freedom.

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Ok. What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?

Palantas

Most infantry units are not highly mobile. Those that are motorized (trucks) or mechanized (APCs) are even more vulnerable to tanks, as they are much more visible. Now, that a tank can be destroyed by man portable weapons doesn't make it useless, since most weapons have no effect on it. Men and trucks can be destroyed by light weapons, but they're still useful. Javelin-type systems are not widespread. A US infantry company (about 120 mne) has six of them. A tank company has 12 tanks. Having a javelin does not guarantee a kill, just like firing a single bullet at a man does not guarantee he'll be killed.

Russian Anti-Tank Weapons are, and are highly effective even agaist modern tanks. In 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah had access to fairly outdated Russian Guided Anti-Tank Weaponry and still managed to do very serious damage to the largely tank based Isreali army. I think they managed to damage over 50 tanks as a result, and it was the anti-tank weaponry that is credited with the success they saw.

Agaist a modern army, tanks have limited effectiveness compared to what they once had.

Tanks are also useful for smashing their way through tough terrain, over barbed wire, that sort of thing. Isn't there a special type of tank that can make a bridge over reasonable distances too?

MissLibrarian

So everyone in this thread is assuming its a tank vs insurgents.

What about tanks vs other tanks? or vs aircraft?

TehFuneral

With tanks vs tanks, it generally comes down to has the bigger stick. The Abrams is still one of the best tanks, the best to my knowledge being the Challenger 2.

[QUOTE="Led_poison"]

They protect the healer and dps

WiiMan21

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Ok. What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?

cobrax55

Most infantry units are not highly mobile. Those that are motorized (trucks) or mechanized (APCs) are even more vulnerable to tanks, as they are much more visible. Now, that a tank can be destroyed by man portable weapons doesn't make it useless, since most weapons have no effect on it. Men and trucks can be destroyed by light weapons, but they're still useful. Javelin-type systems are not widespread. A US infantry company (about 120 mne) has six of them. A tank company has 12 tanks. Having a javelin does not guarantee a kill, just like firing a single bullet at a man does not guarantee he'll be killed.

Russian Anti-Tank Weapons are, and are highly effective even agaist modern tanks. In 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah had access to fairly outdated Russian Guided Anti-Tank Weaponry and still managed to do very serious damage to the largely tank based Isreali army. I think they managed to damage over 50 tanks as a result, and it was the anti-tank weaponry that is credited with the success they saw.

Agaist a modern army, tanks have limited effectiveness compared to what they once had.

That was mostly because Hezbollah managed to get tandem charge RPG rockets, and the Israelis didn't expect them to have those. There is armor designed to defeat tandem charge rockets, and the Israelis have it, they just didn't know that Hezbollah had such weapons. In general you don't see tandem charge rounds used too often, especially by insurgents. Also, the majority of the Israeli tanks used in that war were the older Merkava Mk IIIs, not the newer, more advanced and better armored Mk IVs, which were still in pretty limited production at the time. And while 50-something tanks were damaged, only about half a dozen were outright destroyed or otherwise rendered a loss...And some of those weren't even to RPGs. Most of those tanks were repaired and put back into service easily enough.

But in general, the average man-portable anti-armor weapon isn't quite as effective against modern tanks as you'd think. I remember a story from the beginning of the Iraq War were a Challenger 2 was hit with 8 RPG rockets and still would have been fully functional had it not thrown a track trying to back out of the ambush. Repairs took less than a day, and the crew had only minor injuries.

As for the original argument, in addition to some of the things other people said gunships and other aircraft have another negative: They can't fly in harsh weather conditions. Tanks can operate in pretty much anything, and while modern aircraft can operate in some pretty bad conditions, there are still plenty of scenarios where the Army wouldn't want to risk sending out Apaches due to weather.

What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?

I genuinly don't really know.Urworstnhtmare

If I'm not mistaken, North Korea's weapons technology is all old stuff. Their tanks and everything are either cold war or before.

On-land heavy weapon support. A human being can't carry around the firepower that a tank delivers.

[ Tanks are actually probably less effective against insurgent troops since they tend to be in areas where tanks either cause too much collateral damage or aren't as effective on offense as they should be.Ace6301

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Ok. What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?

Palantas

Most infantry units are not highly mobile. Those that are motorized (trucks) or mechanized (APCs) are even more vulnerable to tanks, as they are much more visible. Now, that a tank can be destroyed by man portable weapons doesn't make it useless, since most weapons have no effect on it. Men and trucks can be destroyed by light weapons, but they're still useful. Javelin-type systems are not widespread. A US infantry company (about 120 mne) has six of them. A tank company has 12 tanks. Having a javelin does not guarantee a kill, just like firing a single bullet at a man does not guarantee he'll be killed.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Most infantry units are not highly mobile. Those that are motorized (trucks) or mechanized (APCs) are even more vulnerable to tanks, as they are much more visible. Now, that a tank can be destroyed by man portable weapons doesn't make it useless, since most weapons have no effect on it. Men and trucks can be destroyed by light weapons, but they're still useful. Javelin-type systems are not widespread. A US infantry company (about 120 mne) has six of them. A tank company has 12 tanks. Having a javelin does not guarantee a kill, just like firing a single bullet at a man does not guarantee he'll be killed.

raven28256

Russian Anti-Tank Weapons are, and are highly effective even agaist modern tanks. In 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah had access to fairly outdated Russian Guided Anti-Tank Weaponry and still managed to do very serious damage to the largely tank based Isreali army. I think they managed to damage over 50 tanks as a result, and it was the anti-tank weaponry that is credited with the success they saw.

Agaist a modern army, tanks have limited effectiveness compared to what they once had.

That was mostly because Hezbollah managed to get tandem charge RPG rockets, and the Israelis didn't expect them to have those. There is armor designed to defeat tandem charge rockets, and the Israelis have it, they just didn't know that Hezbollah had such weapons. In general you don't see tandem charge rounds used too often, especially by insurgents. Also, the majority of the Israeli tanks used in that war were the older Merkava Mk IIIs, not the newer, more advanced and better armored Mk IVs, which were still in pretty limited production at the time. And while 50-something tanks were damaged, only about half a dozen were outright destroyed or otherwise rendered a loss...And some of those weren't even to RPGs. Most of those tanks were repaired and put back into service easily enough.

But in general, the average man-portable anti-armor weapon isn't quite as effective against modern tanks as you'd think. I remember a story from the beginning of the Iraq War were a Challenger 2 was hit with 8 RPG rockets and still would have been fully functional had it not thrown a track trying to back out of the ambush. Repairs took less than a day, and the crew had only minor injuries.

As for the original argument, in addition to some of the things other people said gunships and other aircraft have another negative: They can't fly in harsh weather conditions. Tanks can operate in pretty much anything, and while modern aircraft can operate in some pretty bad conditions, there are still plenty of scenarios where the Army wouldn't want to risk sending out Apaches due to weather.

Except thats not true. Hezbollah had access to fairly modern Guided Anti-Tank Weapons...not RPG's. It was a serious enough issue that the Israili goverment personally went to the Russian goverment to figure out where they were getting these weapons.

Your talking about RPG's, which truely do very little agaist modern tanks. ATGM's like the one below on the other hand, are rather damaging and did serious damage to Israeli armor. I do not know what kind of ATGM's they had access too, but I assume they were rather outdated since they were still guided by joystick rather than laser like newer models.

That was mostly because Hezbollah managed to get tandem charge RPG rockets, and the Israelis didn't expect them to have those. There is armor designed to defeat tandem charge rockets, and the Israelis have it, they just didn't know that Hezbollah had such weapons. In general you don't see tandem charge rounds used too often, especially by insurgents. Also, the majority of the Israeli tanks used in that war were the older Merkava Mk IIIs, not the newer, more advanced and better armored Mk IVs, which were still in pretty limited production at the time. And while 50-something tanks were damaged, only about half a dozen were outright destroyed or otherwise rendered a loss...And some of those weren't even to RPGs. Most of those tanks were repaired and put back into service easily enough.

But in general, the average man-portable anti-armor weapon isn't quite as effective against modern tanks as you'd think. I remember a story from the beginning of the Iraq War were a Challenger 2 was hit with 8 RPG rockets and still would have been fully functional had it not thrown a track trying to back out of the ambush. Repairs took less than a day, and the crew had only minor injuries.

As for the original argument, in addition to some of the things other people said gunships and other aircraft have another negative: They can't fly in harsh weather conditions. Tanks can operate in pretty much anything, and while modern aircraft can operate in some pretty bad conditions, there are still plenty of scenarios where the Army wouldn't want to risk sending out Apaches due to weather.

raven28256

The AT units talked about are not "RPGs" they're, laser or cable, guided missile systems (mostly Kornet units) who have a HEAT explosive head, or their chance of penetrating a tank would be very low. Even then- they need to hit a vulnerable area of the tank (Most damaged IL tanks kept on fighting)and have a very skilled operator.

There isn't a magic-fix-armour to guard against them that the IDF somehow misplaced or forgot to don, aswell. Their drawbacks are many, though: they aren't mobile at all and they rely on stealth ambushes to work properly, Obviously- they can't capture land or effectively advance at all. their only purpose is to wait for the highly mobile and fire-superior tank and try to stop it.

This Armour V. AT thing has been going on for ages, now.

[QUOTE="raven28256"]

That was mostly because Hezbollah managed to get tandem charge RPG rockets, and the Israelis didn't expect them to have those. There is armor designed to defeat tandem charge rockets, and the Israelis have it, they just didn't know that Hezbollah had such weapons. In general you don't see tandem charge rounds used too often, especially by insurgents. Also, the majority of the Israeli tanks used in that war were the older Merkava Mk IIIs, not the newer, more advanced and better armored Mk IVs, which were still in pretty limited production at the time. And while 50-something tanks were damaged, only about half a dozen were outright destroyed or otherwise rendered a loss...And some of those weren't even to RPGs. Most of those tanks were repaired and put back into service easily enough.

But in general, the average man-portable anti-armor weapon isn't quite as effective against modern tanks as you'd think. I remember a story from the beginning of the Iraq War were a Challenger 2 was hit with 8 RPG rockets and still would have been fully functional had it not thrown a track trying to back out of the ambush. Repairs took less than a day, and the crew had only minor injuries.

As for the original argument, in addition to some of the things other people said gunships and other aircraft have another negative: They can't fly in harsh weather conditions. Tanks can operate in pretty much anything, and while modern aircraft can operate in some pretty bad conditions, there are still plenty of scenarios where the Army wouldn't want to risk sending out Apaches due to weather.

grape_of_wrath

The AT units talked about are not "RPGs" they're, laser or cable,guided missile systems (mostly Kornet units) who have a HEAT explosive head, or their chance of penetrating a tank would be very low.Even then- they need to hit a vulnerable area of the tank (Most damaged IL tankskept on fighting)and have a very skilled operator.

There isn't a magic-fix-armour to guard against them that the IDF somehow misplacedor forgot to don, aswell. Their drawbacks are many, though: they aren't mobile at all and they rely on stealth ambushesto work properly, Obviously- they can't capture land or effectivelyadvance at all. their only purpose is to wait for the highly mobile and fire-superior tank and try to stop it.

This Armour V. AT thing has been going on for ages, now.

Their fairly mobile. Obviously a single soldier isnt going to be able to use it and carry it around, it takes a small team. But they are portable enough to deploy reasonablly quickly and have a pretty massive range of well over a mile. I believe their are also more portable shoulder launched versions. They did some serious damage to the Israili army, which wasnt expecting such heavy resistance and were as a result never able to advance deep into Hezbollah territory.

I dont know concreatly what kind of numbers they achieved, but I know for a fact they managed to kill the crew of these tanks on several occasions, and seriously damage the tanks on many others.

I do not know what kind of ATGM's they had access too, but I assume they were rather outdated since they were still guided by joystick rather than laser like newer models.

cobrax55

See my post, below. Their "infamous" tool was the Kornet missile- which is laser or cableguided (Joystick or levers is the method of aim, if anything). in any manner, Hezbollah's damage came only from 2nd generation missile systems- which are modern and are the bulk of what is used by western armies, today.

Here, there is good news footage of the issues the Israili tanks faced when up agaist these ATGM's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws

Their fairly mobile. Obviously a single soldier isnt going to be able to use it and carry it around, it takes a small team. But they are portable enough to deploy reasonablly quickly and have a pretty massive range of well over a mile. I believe their are also more portable shoulder launched versions. They did some serious damage to the Israili army, which wasnt expecting such heavy resistance and were as a result never able to advance deep into Hezbollah territory.

They have to be moved on foot- or they lose all effectiveness. Which, automatically, renders them "incredibly immobile" the damage inflicted resulted from hidden ambushes the IDF had trouble spotting.

I dont know concreatly what kind of numbers they achieved, but I know for a fact they managed to kill the crew of these tanks on several occasions, and seriously damage the tanks on many others.

I know exactly the number of deaths sustained by armoured crews- and i'm not going to share it. let's say it's far lower than you would think (take into account that less than a 100 israelis died- and that most of those were infantrymen. the "failure" mentality stemms from the Israeli public's tendency to hysteria in anything related to army casualties. In Israel- a soldier's life is much more valued than a civilian one- A thing which I consider a national mental illness).

cobrax55