“Freaking lasers”
Get it right, Measure for Measure.
Well, I suspect for the zombie apocalypse, canister would be a lot more effective than HEAT or SABOT ammunition.
When this thread started, the M60 was in its mid-forties.
Naturally, but if they all conk out, you can still traverse, elevate, and fire, right?
Your nuclear battlefield doesn’t have to be in Washington D.C.
No they won’t. Sooner or later you have to step out. The best defense from zombies is a well-stocked fortified place, or a sea-going vessel.
Nonsense. The best defense is a good offense, even against zombies. Once you’ve started digging in, you’ve lost.
I think the best use of tanks in the zombie apocalypse would be to run over zombies. You get a bait human and put them in a cage or something to attract a zombie horde. Then you simply run your tank in circles around the bait human, using the zombies guts to grease the tracks. You should be able to run over thousands per tank per hour. Shouldn’t take long to clear an area. 
I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusions from the 1st Gulf War. Just because the USAF and allied air forces did a real number on dug in, entrenched tanks, it doesn’t follow that they’re useless on the battlefield anymore. It was poor tactics and deployment on the Iraqi side that allowed the USAF to destroy so many. In addition, they had unchallenged air superiority- the Iraqis weren’t sending planes up to interfere, nor were they generally firing AAA at the Coalition planes.
You could just as easily point at the astounding Coalition victory and use that as ammunition to say that tanks are still valid in modern warfare- even when the Iraqis stood and fought (in Gulf War I or II) with their best tanks, the US armored forces went through them like hot knives through butter- without air or artillery support. Our tanks and crews are that much better than the Iraqi ones that they didn’t stand a chance.
Sure, but have fun getting resupplied when every element in your supply chain has had a nuke dropped on it. Don’t worry about complaining, every element in your command chain has had a nuke dropped on it too. That’s what I mean by it being a moot point.
Battlefield? No, a battlefield implies a battle was fought over it. I don’t think I’d describe a slew of warheads glassing the city to be a battle.
I tried giving World War Z a read with all the acclaim it got, but when it tried describing why the army couldn’t stop the zombies there was one big glaring “did not do his research” after another, until it got to the reason why tanks were no good against zombies since they were mostly armed with anti-tank sabot rounds of little use against infantry or zombies (a legit complaint at the time - well the vs. infantry part - there was no dedicated HE round, only HEAT and the standard load out on the M1A1 was I believe something like 32 APFSDS and 8 HEAT; there was also no canister round for the 120mm Rhienmetall for a long time, a step back from the 105mm of the M1). That making tank impotent against zombies just got a /facepalm from me and I couldn’t keep reading.
Yeah, Max Brooks does that sometimes. His discussion of radioactivity in his other book just about made me toss it across the room.
I would think “endlessly driving back and forth squashing the zombies” would be the basic use of a tank in that scenario.
Given the concerns over tanks driving over real troops in recent wars, I’d imagine it would be extremely easy to drive over hypothetical undead. The limiting factor would be fuel supply.
No further need to complain then, all that remains is the celebration. Forever.
Bumped for the latest tank shenanigans.
I’ve never been in the military but I would venture a guess that tanks might still be effective if they are used in conjunction with supporting infantry and helicopter air support. What we are seeing in Russia may be more a failure of tactics and cooperation than a fundamental failure of the tank itself.
That being said, though, tanks are notorious maintenance and resource hogs, so it may be worth it to ditch them sheerly from a poor benefit:cost ratio nowadays alone. The benefit that they provide isn’t what it was 80 years ago.
So in three months of war where highly motivated local forces are using the best weapons that can be shipped to them in a hurry they have managed to destroy one out of every ten mudbutt-ass Russian tanks?
I think tanks are doing just fine.
That’s your conclusion?
As I understand it, that’s “one out of ten” tanks in Russia’s entire tank force, not just the ones deployed to Ukraine. And at $5 million a piece, that’s $1.3 billion in equipment destroyed by rockets that cost $100,000.
Let’s not discount the “shipping in a hurry” part either. A couple dozen Javelins or NLAWs or some of these cheap drones can be shoved into a cargo plane and dropped in downtown Kyiv in 24 hours (depending on availability obviously). Shipping 70 ton main battle tanks and all the support and logistics is a lot more complex.
Also, what’s the point of designing and building the latest tank (the Russian T-14) if you are afraid to use it in battle or it’s too expensive to mass produce? And rumor has it one of the new T-14 tanks was destroyed in Syria.
The main use case for tanks is in open, flat terrain like Eastern Ukraine, the Iraqi desert or Kansas. In that scenario, the scale and speed of the battlefield is such that you really need to be a vehicle, artillery piece or aircraft. And conventional wisdom is that if you need a vehicle, you want one that is fast, well protected, with a big gun (ergo a “tank”).
I think maybe the questions isn’t “are tanks obsolete”. It’s more “what should the ‘tank’ (as in an armed vehicle for dominating the battlefield) look like and how should it be used”? It’s similar to the argument about the “battleship” becoming obsolete. Yes, the battleship as defined as a “big gunboat with heavy armor and massive cannons to serve as the primary capital ship of a fleet” (like the Iowa, Bismarck, or Yamato) is obsolete. But “big armed boats” are not obsolete. Although if the Zumwalk-class destroyer or “littoral combat ship” are any indication, it seems like naval planners are suffering from a similar dilemma in figuring out what future warships should look like.
I guess the point is it seems that once you develop an effective weapons platform, conventional wisdom is to continue to develop “more” of what makes it effective. For the tank - more power to make it faster, more armor, bigger gun. But then opponents who can’t afford to compete directly on “more” look for more affordable alternatives. For awhile, planners and designers look for ways to defend their platform, but ends up making it more complex and expensive. Ultimately they need to decide if they are even thinking about warfare in the correct way at that point.
What I’ve long wondered is what sort of anti-drone countermeasures are in the works. I mean, it seems to me that something along the lines of counterbattery radar connected to a small caliber MG/shotgun would be effective against small drones. We’ve done AA for years- we’d just need to scale it down to a more infantry platoon level.
I’m not sure anything that’s happening is particularly revolutionary w.r.t. tanks. It’s pretty clear that the Russians’ combined arms cooperation is not particularly robust- we see a LOT of lone AFVs getting destroyed on the roads, or in towns, etc… with no infantry around beating the bushes to keep the missile people from shooting at the tanks.
That’s fundamentally no different than the Israelis vs the Egyptian AT-3 Sagger missiles in 1973- they suffered horrific tank losses early on, because they were caught unawares of the missiles and their capabilities. As they figured it out, the losses dropped fast.
The AT-3 Sagger is “manual command line-of-sight” missile that needs to be steered to its target with a joystick by a trained operator. The Javelin and NLAW are basically “point and shoot” weapons that more or less automatically find their way to their target and strike the weakest point.
Also I think these small drones are a fundamental difference. Take the Switchblade drone for example. There are two main variants:
The Switchblade 300 that is man-portable, has a range of about 6 miles, and is suitable for destroying a truck or other soft target.
The Switchblade 600 is bigger, has a range of about 25 miles, can loiter for 20 minutes, and can blow up a tank with a Javelin-like guided missile.
Both are single-use “suicide drones” and cost a fraction of what a tank costs. And they engage the tank from much further away than the tank can shoot. They also seem like they are too small for anti-aircraft to deal with effectively.
It seems to me it doesn’t matter if you have infantry supporting the tank because the drone operator is 20 miles away and his buddy just blew up the BMP carrying the infantry.
That’s where air superiority comes into play, keeping the ground for more than 20 miles away clear, or at the least, quickly retaliating against any attacks.
(Not that Russia has air superiority, which is the whole point as to why they are having as hard a time as they are.)