Rabs said:Il take 4 appaches over 16 tanks any day.
...sorta hard to take and hold ground with air support.
Rabs said:Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?
Rabs said:Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?
mmarsh said:I dunno, I think the Tank is very vulernable. Even in WWII tanks could be easily destroyed by a varity of methods from aircraft, mines, AT equipped infantry, artillery not to mention other tanks and AT-platforms, and this was BEFORE the advent of the AT-Missile. On top of all this all tanks now have to deal with Helicopters which are ideal tank hunters and specialist tank killers such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II and AH-64. Even Iraq has showed that even a car packed with explosives is capable of disabling all but the most heavily armored of tanks. Thats not even mention all the MANPORTs and Technical mounted systems out there.
I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...
mmarsh said:I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...
major liability said:Does anyone know if they are planning to start mounting Stingers on Abrams or anything? It seems like it would increase their survivability against helicopters by a lot.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.