Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919" video.

  1. Ukraine is just facts of life when you send armor in with no protection
    1
  2. Tanks are pretty much done this time as Ukraine is showing The USMC explanation is pretty solid. Tanks have armor and firepower but the logistics of getting it into theater and supporting is massive headache Its main gun limits what it can do Marines with the JTLV and various ATGMs and loitering munitions have demonstrated the ability to strike nearly 16 times further as well superior accuracy The JTLV is substantially lighter, requires just 45 gallons of fuel compared 504 per tank Can be tailored for anti-armor, SHORAD, Counter UAS,EW and Anti personnel. The JTLV NMESIS with 2 Long range precision missiles can strike both land and sea targets its lacks tanks heavy armor however armor kits can make up for it
    1
  3.  @Frenchfrys17  That would be false The best 155mm system reaches 43 miles. Loitering munitions launched from the back of JLTV depending on model can reach over 100 miles Other types of surface to surface also massively out range artillery More importantly, it can strike precision against fixed or moving targets Artillery is a lot of things but far being the god of war. Once aircraft got precision weapons, arty become moot The JTLV doesnt need heavy armor, it has light weight and flexibility which is military are prefering over heavy armor They were seeing armor kills using lightweight mounted fires from the joint light tactical vehicle at ranges of 15 times to 20 times the distance a tank was previously achieving. “We can kill armor formations at ­longer ranges using additional and ­other resources without incurring a 74-ton challenge trying to get that to a shore, or to get it from the United States into the fight,” Smith said. “You simply can’t be there in time They cost a lot in acquisition, maintenance, fuel and logistics when compared with other platforms. Speaking at the International ­Armoured Vehicles Conference on Feb. 10, Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, deputy commandant for Combat Development and Integration, argued that early ­experiments already are proving a smaller, more effective force for ­anti-armor than bringing tanks to the fight There is a another quote from a Marine General that stated that Ukraine validates the USMC decision to divest its tank force
    1
  4.  @Frenchfrys17  Right because the Marine Corps sole mission is fighting China, wrong how about actually reading the full context instead of cherry The Marine Corps shift is to make the Corps a much more flexible rapid response fighting force As the Smith said Armor cant get there in time Ukraine all conventional aircraft is mostly grounded due to the immense air defense network presence in Eastern Ukraine-False The Ukraine air force is ground because they have no capabilities to speak off For air to air combat, their only weapons are short range R-73s and R-27s while the Russian air force has both R-77s and R-33 that massive outrange the R-73 and R-27s The Russian air force has AWACS and Aerial Refueling tankers while the Ukrainian air force has neither Lastly the Ukrainian air force only has handful of short range missiles and unguided weapons while Russia has plenty of long range and precision bombs if the Ukrainian Air force had actually gotten JAS-39s back 2014, you would see a completely different fight as the JAS-39 has access to full range of US and EU weapons Like AIM-120 and Meteors to match the R-77s and R-33. JDAMs, PAVEWAYs, ,MAVERICKs and a number of long range precision cruise missiles Loitering munitions themselves are also easily intercepted by active protection systems and SHORADS.-False again counter-active protection system (CAPS) capability hit targets at higher impact angles of up to 70 degrees. APS effectiveness drops off at high angle Loitering munitions can provide near 90 degree drops on target. SHORAD can't engage loitering muntions as they fly too low but that also requires that Armor needs a SHORAD unit present which itself goes back to point of SEAD which would suppress any SHORAD So again wrong
    1
  5.  @Frenchfrys17  And it would be 1000 words of nonsense Quote Army "The Army will now focus on upgraded lethality efforts, according to the statement, such as the Medium Caliber Weapons System, the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station-Javelin, Anti-Tank Guided Missile updates and the 30mm cannon because they can “provide better distributed capability" The USMC The experimentation that we’ve done now to date successfully using lightweight mounted fires – think the back of a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle – is killing armor at ranges, through calculation, about 15, 20 times the range that a main battle tank can kill another main battle tank, He added the Marine Corps didn’t get rid of its tanks because they weren’t good at taking out adversary tanks, but rather “we can kill armor formations at longer ranges using additional and other resources without incurring a 74-ton challenge trying to get that to a shore, or to get it from the United States into the fight. You simply can’t be there in time.” Both the USMC and Army are doing exactly what I stated, The USMC completely divested it tanks in favor JTLV variants while the Army is focused on both its Stryker and JTLV None of your comments does not change the factor both USMC and Army are moving away from heavy armor As for tanks, When Tank Plinking was coined 1991 where US aircraft were dropping 500lbs laser guided bombs on Iraqi tanks which decimated upwards of 80 percent of Iraqi Armor. The writing was on the wall for tanks Russian forces using armor is they have no options left. While the US spent a fortunate on the SNIPER/LITENING/ATFLIR targeting pods as well upgrades for JDAMs, PAVEWAYs and the Small Diameter Bombs as well E-8 JSTARS and MQ-1/9s for its Air Power and Battle management Russia made no such investment with its air force hence why they have been basically useless. If the Russia had same capabilties as the USAF things would be very different but as with everything with Russia in Ukraine, their shortcomings have been painfully apparent Their KA-52s and Mi-28 are getting smoked because they lack precision missiles. Most of videos you are of them running and gunning on targets very few videos show them strike precisely The US upgraded the Hellfire in all purpose weapon and the videos of Apaches in combat, you see they are not shy about dropping hellfires on targets Apaches and MQ-1/9s will smoke anything with hellfire literally The Turkish TB-2 has exposed a massive chink in Russia's EW. The MQ-1 and 9 use SATCOM while the TB2 uses mainly line-of-sight propagation, Russia's EW was designed to target the SATCOM signals not LSP The Ukrainian air force can come off the bench if they get the right weapons and go after the Russia remaining assets in the Black Sea Battleship became obsolete because of poor thinking What the USN should have done is remove the obsolete Mk7 guns and made room for missiles and lighter guns Remove the rear turret and replace it with twin-arm Mk-26 system from Ticonderoga class The MK-26 on the cruisers was 44 missiles, they could have easily gotten double that number Add a hanger large enough for 2 SH-60s Remove 2 turret and fit a second Mk-26, the longer size of Batteship can accomdate larger missiles like the Harpoon Lastly remove the first turret and replace it VLS The BB has potential but it was wasted
    1
  6.  @Frenchfrys17  No , you actually didn't read the article per your pointless response. The articles clearly show the current direction of militaries and heavy armor is not in the cards As for self propelled howitzers, they are evolving into lighter more flexible systems The Swedish Archer Artillery System weighs just 30 tons. The French CAESAR just 20. Even the newer M1299 is just 40 tons Self propelled howitzers are considerably lighter than tanks and unlike tanks, the size of 155mm makes development of longer range and more advanced much simpler No I am bringing up modern warfare Why waste time trying to bring armor to bear when achieving air superiority allows for total control Once you control the air, the everything on the ground becomes moot Wow you knuckle draggers you are stupid When dealing with an enemy with, integrated air defence system (IADS) , The first aircraft in F-18s launching ADM-160s aerial decoys with F-35s in stealth with AGM-88Gs.with EA-18Gs at ready to start jamming. Once the decoys reach the designated point, the EA-18Gs starts jamming allowing the F-35s to easily close to 100 miles and fire off AGM-88Gs , Thats just 4 missiles for command truck, radar, missiles and Panstir The Panstir when linked the S-400 radar benefits from its advanced nature but it if its jammed, the Panstir is screwed as its own radar is not powerful enough to resist jamming. This is the current plan based on the US military existing capabilties Now the future NGJ pods as well HALO, HAWC and ARRW weapons change this picture from the current 20 minute exercise to just 1 minute 30 secs depending on weapon used An ARRW launched from an F-15E covers 350 miles in 1 min 23 secs , an EA-18G can easily suppress any radar for 1 min 23 secs The ARRW payload is not knew but with 1000lbs warhead, it would easy cripple an S-400 site As far as 4th gen fighters attacking S-400, they have air launched cruise missiles which allow to attack well outside S-400 range Apache flying nap of the earth can and have in past penetrated IADS its called tactics for reason
    1
  7.  @samuelskinner7704  Dont feed the bot
    1