First ever kill of Russian T-90 recorded in Syria.

[Mihalik]

Sure they're around, but every time you hear about them these days they're getting blown up by IEDs or missiles or some other vastly cheaper weapon system, they never really seem to be helping win any battles these days.

There are a number of factors at play here. One is that in most cases big battles of the sorts tanks excel in aren't fought that often. The other being that there is little media coverage for when they are used in most unspectacular, low key but important roles so it creates the perception that they aren't used or are important.

They are. Just because big tank battles a la WW2 aren't fought anymore it doesn't mean they aren't there, doing their role.

[Deleted]

Is this the thread where we cheer on ISIS and AQ?

[Slant]

Being state-of-the-art doesn't grant immunity. Not sure how this is surprising. Besides, Russia won Syrian proxy war and they will control energy lines as well as resources in Near East. The party that should not be happy about things going on in Syria is West and most importantly Europe for both refugee and energy issues.

Russian stuff is hardly state of the art. And surprisingly, anti tank weapons kill tanks. Who'da thunk?

[Yvaelle]

I still wonder why modern tanks still have to be piloted by a driver. We can remote control all kind of complicated shit, why not a tank?

Doesn't make a very advanced impression to me.

It's a good point, not to mention that probably half to 2/3rds of the complexity of a tank revolves around putting people inside of it and making it livable(ish).

If all we were designing was a tank tread with a bigass gun on it, the tank could probably have walls twice as think, and be half the current size - improving maneuverability and potentially top speed / operating range.

I suspect the answer is that nobody is quite comfortable with the risk of control interference. Electronic Warfare solutions like Symphony could potentially be applied to get close to the tank and disrupt control with massive amounts of chaotic transmission, flooding out the RF bands and rendering the tank inoperable (TKO). That doesn't really matter to things like drone swarms, because the drones are comparatively cheap - but you really need to trust your superior electronics systems if you plan to rely on them solely for things like tanks and jets.

[ParanoiD84]

Is this the thread where we cheer on ISIS and AQ?

Gonna go watch some videos where isis gets slaughtered, that will make it even

[Deleted]

I still wonder why modern tanks still have to be piloted by a driver. We can remote control all kind of complicated shit, why not a tank?

Doesn't make a very advanced impression to me.

Well, one Armata version is turning into a 'robot' that will work in groups, the tanks will also have flying drones that takes off n lands from tank for scouting

There will also be mini-tanks too

[Azadina]

Is this the thread where we cheer on ISIS and AQ?

I'd say it's more a thread where you facepalm at stupids thinking they can go solo all the organizations with a single new flashy tank. One they don't even know how to use apparently.

[Kellhound]

It's a good point, not to mention that probably half to 2/3rds of the complexity of a tank revolves around putting people inside of it and making it livable(ish).

If all we were designing was a tank tread with a bigass gun on it, the tank could probably have walls twice as think, and be half the current size - improving maneuverability and potentially top speed / operating range.

I suspect the answer is that nobody is quite comfortable with the risk of control interference. Electronic Warfare solutions like Symphony could potentially be applied to get close to the tank and disrupt control with massive amounts of chaotic transmission, flooding out the RF bands and rendering the tank inoperable (TKO). That doesn't really matter to things like drone swarms, because the drones are comparatively cheap - but you really need to trust your superior electronics systems if you plan to rely on them solely for things like tanks and jets.

Its not even that, a 155mm air burst shell can easily take out all of the sensors of a tank. No sensors, not way to control it remotely.

[Deleted]

It's a good point, not to mention that probably half to 2/3rds of the complexity of a tank revolves around putting people inside of it and making it livable(ish).

If all we were designing was a tank tread with a bigass gun on it, the tank could probably have walls twice as think, and be half the current size - improving maneuverability and potentially top speed / operating range.

I suspect the answer is that nobody is quite comfortable with the risk of control interference. Electronic Warfare solutions like Symphony could potentially be applied to get close to the tank and disrupt control with massive amounts of chaotic transmission, flooding out the RF bands and rendering the tank inoperable (TKO). That doesn't really matter to things like drone swarms, because the drones are comparatively cheap - but you really need to trust your superior electronics systems if you plan to rely on them solely for things like tanks and jets.

A man down means a man less when it comes to doing maintenance, ever tried fixing thrown tracks when the links weigh 60lbs each? A tank with an auto loader has a 3 man crew, this super modern tank you mention would have 2 men which means you are well and truly fucked if a malfunction occurs or there is an error.

[Shalcker]

"Tank gets hit by two anti-tank missiles, would survive if not for stupidity of crew"

...hell, if they didn't had hatch open i would assume they wouldn't even need to get out...

[xenogear3]

I still wonder why modern tanks still have to be piloted by a driver. We can remote control all kind of complicated shit, why not a tank?

Today's technology has the ability to make killing robots.

The reason you don't see it is because of moral issue.

[Yvaelle]

A man down means a man less when it comes to doing maintenance, ever tried fixing thrown tracks when the links weigh 60lbs each? A tank with an auto loader has a 3 man crew, this super modern tank you mention would have 2 men which means you are well and truly fucked if a malfunction occurs or there is an error.

Or I was actually talking about an entirely remote-operated tank-like vehicle: no passengers at all.

There might actually be a place for such a vehicle on the battlefield, but it would have to be an accompaniment to an existing unit probably. Where as example, a platoon could have humvees for troop transport, but have a remote tank leading the convoy - hardening the tip of the spear so to speak.

Much like the scouting drones already in use by ground units, a remote tank would essentially be able to augment their capability with heavy armor: driving directly into small arms fire, firing artillery, shrugging off IEDs, long range or out-of-sight targeting via drone reconnaissance, etc.

If you wanted to get all F-35 about it, you could strap on some electronic warfare and VTOL - just to really break the budget (Mostly just poking @Skroe)

[Kellhound]

"Tank gets hit by two anti-tank missiles, would survive if not for stupidity of crew"

...hell, if they didn't had hatch open i would assume they wouldn't even need to get out...

The driver's compartment was breached by the second ATGM, that is not a good thing.

[Independent voter]

The tank could be up to 25 years old right? That's a pretty big leap in tech.

[Deleted]

The tank could be up to 25 years old right? That's a pretty big leap in tech.

The M1A2 used by the USA was first rolled out in 1990, the M1A1 was first produced in 1972.

[Independent voter]

The M1A2 used by the USA was first rolled out in 1990, the M1A1 was first produced in 1972.

That's not a M1A2. I thought the Russians built a new tank?

[Bryntrollian]

Should of been escorted by a couple fast APC's or Hummers. At least that it what you are suppose to do in C&C Classic - those damn rocket soldiers fuck up your armor.

Usage of proper military tactics is apparently too haram

[Shalcker]

The driver's compartment was breached by the second ATGM, that is not a good thing.

No, as seen in some videos they actually often drive them with hatches open, so i would assume he got concussion from blast wave... AND top post actually says that driver was evacuated some time after gunner and commander, which goes against assumption of breach.

I haven't seen even single image of actual breach for T-90 - one given in top post certainly doesn't have any.

[Deleted]

That's not a M1A2. I thought the Russians built a new tank?

You said its a pretty big leap in technology while not quoting anyone, I merely pointed out that the newer model is roughly the same age as the T-90. Yes the Russians do have a new tank in the form of the T-14 Armata, not too many people are taking it seriously at the moment because it broke down during its first public appearance and had to be towed away while millions watched and laughed.

[ParanoiD84]

No, as seen in some videos they actually often drive them with hatches open,

Maby so they can escape quickly, have you seen a cooked tank, dont think its very plesant to be inside one