• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the aircraft carrier and armored tank obsolete?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Aimster
Thanks to Iraq

You will never see another tank division vs another tank division fight.

Everything is going to be urban warfare.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

you are a fool to speak in absolutes. If you think there will never be another tank battle, I suggest you look a little deeper, and if you think Iraq awoke people to the nature of uran warfare, you need to check your history books,
Click to expand...

Ok let's look at countries the U.S Hates:

North Korea
Iran
Venezuela
Syria

Are you seriously saying the generals in those countries are going to order their tanks to go all out against our tanks in the open? I think not.

They will A) Be destroyed by aircraft B) Be destroyed by our tanks before they even get off a shot. Our range > Their range.

 
The tank will be replaced by the mech. Everybody knows this. Aircraft carriers will be replaced by Starcraft carriers!
 
Originally posted by: Kaieye
I don't believe that a US battle group can protect a carrier with the present technology of anti-ship missle systems. The "enemy" could launch about a dozen of these missles with a strong probability of striking our carriers with at least two missles from this salvo.

Didn't a few abram tanks get knocked out by anti-tank missles over there? Has anyone solved the mysterious reasons why the tanks were knocked out? I am not talking about the rpg weapons the terrorists are using.
Click to expand...

LOL!
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Aimster
Thanks to Iraq

You will never see another tank division vs another tank division fight.

Everything is going to be urban warfare.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

you are a fool to speak in absolutes. If you think there will never be another tank battle, I suggest you look a little deeper, and if you think Iraq awoke people to the nature of uran warfare, you need to check your history books,
Click to expand...

Ok let's look at countries the U.S Hates:

North Korea
Iran
Venezuela
Syria

Are you seriously saying the generals in those countries are going to order their tanks to go all out against our tanks in the open? I think not.

They will A) Be destroyed by aircraft B) Be destroyed by our tanks before they even get off a shot. Our range > Their range.
Click to expand...

There will be no war with venezuela, nobody wants one, and Chavez is grandstanding, Syria would be more like afghanistan than iraq, but:

1. A war w/ NK is almost certainly going to start out with a HUGE land battle, much like the first time.

2. Not all wars involve the US on one side, or the axis of evil on the other. The US is not likely to get into tank battles in the next decade unless NK strats something, that doesn't mean there won't be another tank battle again. I guarantee you, this century will play host to plenty of tank battles.
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Aimster
Thanks to Iraq

You will never see another tank division vs another tank division fight.

Everything is going to be urban warfare.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

you are a fool to speak in absolutes. If you think there will never be another tank battle, I suggest you look a little deeper, and if you think Iraq awoke people to the nature of uran warfare, you need to check your history books,
Click to expand...

Ok let's look at countries the U.S Hates:

North Korea
Iran
Venezuela
Syria

Are you seriously saying the generals in those countries are going to order their tanks to go all out against our tanks in the open? I think not.

They will A) Be destroyed by aircraft B) Be destroyed by our tanks before they even get off a shot. Our range > Their range.
Click to expand...

There will be no war with venezuela, nobody wants one, and Chavez is grandstanding, Syria would be more like afghanistan than iraq, but:

1. A war w/ NK is almost certainly going to start out with a HUGE land battle, much like the first time.

2. Not all wars involve the US on one side, or the axis of evil on the other. The US is not likely to get into tank battles in the next decade unless NK strats something, that doesn't mean there won't be another tank battle again. I guarantee you, this century will play host to plenty of tank battles.
Click to expand...

Syria will not be another Afghanistan. Afghanistan had no army. A bunch of men in robes with WW2 weapons. Iraq's military was destroyed in 1991 and almost all the forces put down their weapons or ran off. They had nothing to fight for. Same with Afghans.

Syria has a very effective anti-tank team. If you look at the battle in Lebanon between Israel and Syria you will see that Syria's anti-tank group was an annoyance for Israel. I'm sure since then they have improved their tactics. Syria also has a hundred thousand+ strong troops ready for battle. Now unless they go out in the open for our jets to hit them then any invading country is looking at very major heavy fighting.
 
Aircraft Carries and Armored tanks are not at all obselete.

Just because there is a technology to counter them doesn't mean they are obselete.

They both do their job, there is not really anything available to do their job for them that does it better, cheaper, and safer.
 
Lets just say that even with all the new Russian and Chinese anti-ship weapons, I'm not worried about losing a carrier 😉
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Say hello to the SeaRam

The navy isn't asleap at the wheel (except for that one sub 😉 )
Click to expand...

The RIM-116 was developed by General Dynamics under a July 1976 agreement
Click to expand...
good grief man thats almost 30 years ago!

Think of how many generations of improved missiles have been done since then....

Like I said, I'm not worried, if theres one thing the US is good at, its having the best toys.

 
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: K1052
Say hello to the SeaRam

The navy isn't asleap at the wheel (except for that one sub 😉 )
Click to expand...

The RIM-116 was developed by General Dynamics under a July 1976 agreement
Click to expand...
good grief man thats almost 30 years ago!

Think of how many generations of improved missiles have been done since then....

Like I said, I'm not worried, if theres one thing the US is good at, its having the best toys.
Click to expand...

Methinks it has been upgraded since then.
 
SM-3 not a bad missile. I feel pretty confident our GMDs can protect our carriers. once we develop better DE weapons, missile may be a thing of the past.
 
IIRC the reason tanks were being knocked out in Iraq was because armor on a tank is usually the weakest in the rear (where the engine/exhaust are)... enemy was able to get behind the tank in urban warfare and hit it's weakest point...

In normal warfare, this would rarely happen...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top