Are tanks obsolete in terms of modern warfare?

[yetgdhfgh]

Modern tanks in the future imo will be crewless and much smaller with alot of non lethal as well as lethal weapons to control crowds in urban environments as well as being armoured enough to survive direct and indirect hits and IED attacks.

[Nasukkin]

Tanks are great at destroying an under-equipped enemy that is close to you. Not much else...

If you choose the right enemy and battlegrounds, that's all you could ever hope for!

[kamuimac]

Considering how big nukes can kill them i don't see the point of them, why not make a movable bunker with a cannon like in ww2? You know, the Maus or the Tortoise?

nah cannon fodder will be always needed in any kind of war

[Zeta333]

Considering how big nukes can kill them i don't see the point of them, why not make a movable bunker with a cannon like in ww2? You know, the Maus or the Tortoise? ]

you clearly have no clue about modern convential warfare. I also enjoy the 2 tank destroyers you linked as evidence of what modern tanks should be.

[Kellhound]

Considering a drone and unmanned vehicles can do all the same things human beings can do, I would say yes.

No they cannot. They just reduce the loss of life.

[Independent voter]

Combined arms, infantry cover the tanks, so do aircraft, drones, etc

[Mormolyce]

Unless something happens pretty soon I think modern warfare itself is kind of obsolete.

[caervek]

I'm really not seeing how one of the worst curbstoppings delivered in military history can be classified as "could still have been a lot worse".

Because there have been much much more one sided conflicts in history, Iraq was always going to lose against the US led coalition, they never stood a chance, but considering how heavily against them the odds were stacked they took longer to lose than they should have, hence they did better than expected and it could have been a lot worse.

The Iran-Iraq war was basically a WWI redux.

Just with supersonic nuclear capable bombers blowing stuff up :P

In seriousness though you could make that argument about any conflict since WW2 not involving the west. Hell the recent civil war in Ukraine may have involved large scale 1980's tank battles but it never really evolved beyond WW2 levels of tactics.

- - - Updated - - -

you clearly have no clue about modern convential warfare. I also enjoy the 2 tank destroyers you linked as evidence of what modern tanks should be.

The Maus was a super heavy tank not a TD.

[Yunru]

As soon as drones like this will start to exist, tanks will become obsolete:


+ Higher mobility due to howering in air
+ Harder to hit
+ Ai is better at killing some1 that human, since it has no emotion
+ Can work on water

- May have problems with mountains and other terrain due to gravity
- Energy storage needs improvment

[Doctor Amadeus]

No they cannot. They just reduce the loss of life.

Yes you are right, probably a fucked up way for me to respond there, yes reduces loss of life, particularly whichever army deploys these machines.

[caervek]

Note: The Maus was a POS. It was excessively heavy and put tremendous stress on the engine and other parts causing them to break down alot. Mobility is key, the Maus was not used much by the Germans.

The Germans only finished one Maus that (allegedly) saw combat before the Soviets overran the factory. It was a good tank, invulnerable to pretty much every tank the allies had, if it had been available in numbers it would have been a game changer but then you could say that about most things the Germans built late into the war.

There was something of a comical running theme to WW2 that whoever had the worst but easiest to mass produce tank was at a big advantage because they could simply swarm their enemies superior tanks, the bizarre thing was that it was originally Germany who used this to batter France/etc, then became obsessed with making the best tanks which then got zerg rushed by shitty Shermans and T-34s lol.

- - - Updated - - -

+ Can work on water

Hovertanks don't work on water McFly!

[Leih]

Just 4 DPS it

No way, if anything I'd take the tank and 4 DPS and skip the healer!

[Jonnusthegreat]

Yeah, lol..and in those times they..dropped it on a tank?

Seriously..has OP ever looked at the recent wars?

If tanks are obsolete because somebody will drop a nuke on them, then hello aircraft carrier ^^

Yeah I honestly don't know what aircraft carriers are a thing. It would take 1 sub 5 minutes to destroy billions of dollars of military equipment.

Not even a sub, just a long range ballistic missile. Or slug. Or rock.

[Akainakali]

Because there have been much much more one sided conflicts in history, Iraq was always going to lose against the US led coalition, they never stood a chance, but considering how heavily against them the odds were stacked they took longer to lose than they should have, hence they did better than expected and it could have been a lot worse.

No they did far worse than expected. Everyone pretty much was expecting them to put up a tough determined fight and they were barely even a speed bump. They were almost completely ineffectual and wound up as largely just target practice. I'm baffled as to where you're getting this "they did better than expected" from or how short of using nukes they could have been more comprehensively crushed in Gulf War I.

The Germans only finished one Maus that (allegedly) saw combat before the Soviets overran the factory. It was a good tank, invulnerable to pretty much every tank the allies had, if it had been available in numbers it would have been a game changer but then you could say that about most things the Germans built late into the war.

Maus was so heavy it ruined what ever roads ran on, was mechanically unreliable and slow. Any built would rapidly have become immobile pill boxes due to breakdowns. It was a very, very stupid idea.

It might have been invulnerable to most allied tank guns, but that was already true of tanks like the Tiger and King Tiger and THEY didn't change the war. Nor could any of them have.

There was something of a comical running theme to WW2 that whoever had the worst but easiest to mass produce tank was at a big advantage because they could simply swarm their enemies superior tanks, the bizarre thing was that it was originally Germany who used this to batter France/etc, then became obsessed with making the best tanks which then got zerg rushed by shitty Shermans and T-34s lol.

There's a saying "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" and that underpins what you're talking about there.

That you think the T-34 was a shitty tank, shows how little you know. It was hands down the best tank overall of the war and in many respects the father of the modern MBT.

The Sherman was not a good tank in many respects, but it was fast and it was reliable unlike most German tanks, which while well armored and well gunned were basically unreliable mechanically and difficult to repair.

In seriousness though you could make that argument about any conflict since WW2 not involving the west. Hell the recent civil war in Ukraine may have involved large scale 1980's tank battles but it never really evolved beyond WW2 levels of tactics.

I meant WWI specifically since, that is pretty much the formula the Iran-Iraq war followed. WW2 was a very different war from WWI.

Yeah I honestly don't know what aircraft carriers are a thing. It would take 1 sub 5 minutes to destroy billions of dollars of military equipment.

Not even a sub, just a long range ballistic missile. Or slug. Or rock.

Sigh... Seriously folks, these things aren't a simple to pull off as you think they are. Subs are the main threat to an aircraft carrier, but if you can't see the uses of one or think they're easily destroyed and that nobody has identified these widely discussed threats or taken any steps to counter them, well I can't help you.

[caervek]

No they did far worse than expected.

They really didn't, everyone thought they were going to get roflstomped (like they would be a decade later), instead they managed to hang on for over a month and even inflict some damage. They did noticeably better than anyone else who ever faced a US led coalition, so again, it could have been a lot worse.

Maus was so heavy it ruined what ever roads ran on, was mechanically unreliable and slow.

Citation needed, as only one working Maus was finished and didn't last long enough for reliability to be tested before the Soviets arrived at the factory those are some pretty bold claims.

That you think the T-34 was a shitty tank, shows how little you know.

It was a very shitty tank, I.E because they were rushed together many of them had gaps where the panels didn't line up which meant they were highly susceptible to molotov cocktails. Like I sad though that worked in their favour as a running theme of WW2 was that having lots of crappy tanks was much better than having a few good tanks.

It was hands down the best tank overall of the war and in many respects the father of the modern MBT.

It was the most influential tank of the war, that doesn't make it any good, it's strength was how easily/cheaply it could be mass produced and used to swarm the enemy. Also the father of the modern MBT is the Centurion.

[Azadina]

Yeah I honestly don't know what aircraft carriers are a thing. It would take 1 sub 5 minutes to destroy billions of dollars of military equipment.

Not even a sub, just a long range ballistic missile. Or slug. Or rock.

Except carriers are extremely well defended by the support group each has. They are not unarmed themselves either.

[Alydael]

I think, that in a "modern" war (not every country has the capabilities to fight a "modern" war), most ground forces are basically obsolete at this stage. That would include tanks.

[Tehshocka]

I think, that in a "modern" war (not every country has the capabilities to fight a "modern" war), most ground forces are basically obsolete at this stage. That would include tanks.

I wouldn't go that far.

Essentially from what I've seen with my eyes in the 4 Major Operations the US has conducted. The playbook is still:

1) Destroy comms
2) Destroy AA Defense
3) Establish Air Superiority
4) Interrupt Supply Chains
5) Establish occupancy force.

From here there are numerous options

[Akainakali]

They really didn't, everyone thought they were going to get roflstomped (like they would be a decade later), instead they managed to hang on for over a month and even inflict some damage. They did noticeably better than anyone else who ever faced a US led coalition, so again, it could have been a lot worse.

The ground operations lasted 100 hours, a bit over 4 days and while the professionals might have expected them to get crushed, that was not the general belief. Even the professionals were stunned by how quickly they were rolled over. That's utter failure on their part. You are apparently thinking of Gulf War 2 when the US invaded Iraq and that did last a month, but Iraq is not a small country and they failed to do much more than slow down the attacks. It wasn't the utter humiliation that GW1 was though.

Citation needed, as only one working Maus was finished and didn't last long enough for reliability to be tested before the Soviets arrived at the factory those are some pretty bold claims.

It was the case for the Tiger and King Tiger tanks, there's no reason to believe the Maus was going to be any better, especially given the enormous increase in size and weight from those already massive tanks. Square-Cube law and all that.

There's a good reason why modern tanks followed the pattern of the T-34 and NOT the german monster tanks (or those of any other country).

It was a very shitty tank, I.E because they were rushed together many of them had gaps where the panels didn't line up which meant they were highly susceptible to molotov cocktails. Like I sad though that worked in their favour as a running theme of WW2 was that having lots of crappy tanks was much better than having a few good tanks.

It was the most influential tank of the war, that doesn't make it any good, it's strength was how easily/cheaply it could be mass produced and used to swarm the enemy. Also the father of the modern MBT is the Centurion.

First tank to use sloped armor and it was armored well enough to shrug off a lot of the german guns at the time it was introduced. First tank to combine, good speed, good armor, good mobility and a good cannon. That's pretty much the template for the modern MBT.

Sloppy soviet manfacturing, yeah. They were never exactly known for their quality precision manufacturing, but you are ignoring the operational history and what the frigging Germans thought of it, if you think it was such a pushover.

- - - Updated - - -

I think, that in a "modern" war (not every country has the capabilities to fight a "modern" war), most ground forces are basically obsolete at this stage. That would include tanks.

This is just flat out ignorance. Ground forces are in no way shape or form obsolete.

[zenkai]

Last country to play by the rules was Iraq and it got steamrollered so now poor countries choose not to go head to head with Western tanks and instead just plant IEDS which has destroyed more western tanks during the second gulf war and Afghanistan than any of those old russian tanks they used.

The only other countries who would prolly field them is Russia and China but there is no way western tanks would go up against them when they can just pick them off from the air. They are just too evenly matched so it would come down to numbers.

You call using chemical weapons playing by the rules? lol