[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1cc / 8teen / fur / gdp2083 / hydrus / leftpol / russian / startrek ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 859cd210a53231a⋯.jpg (1.13 MB, 2560x1600, 8:5, tank.jpg)

ecd903 No.518823

This is gonna blow your mind, but are tanks considered heavy cavalries, or heavy infantries?

84f453 No.518824

Did we just timewarp to the interwar period and early WW2?


ecd903 No.518825

>>518824

Genuine question since tanks also serve the heavy infantries role as meatshields in modern warfare.


1364ef No.518826

Neither yet both. It actually is very hard to explain but if you consider them one over the other you seriously compromise their tactical effectiveness.


ecd903 No.518827

>>518826

In my simplistic method, it's just good to have a shitload of tanks with good tankers.

And good air support to cover their heads of course.


fc75d2 No.518828

super heavy cavalry, the kind you use for breakthroughs throught enemy lines when nothing else worked.


c17851 No.518829

>>518823

heavy cav, moving fast or slow.

Slow when with troops, fast when on the charge.


ecd903 No.518831

>>518828

>>518829

here's the thing, tanks can also used for defense the same way heavy infantries were used.


75aba7 No.518832

>>518823

They are tanks, they do have horsepower tho, and people inside it who might have guns. It's a modular weak infantry transport with thousands of horse like capabilities, and a cannon.


fc75d2 No.518834

>>518831

You can also use heavy cavalry that way if you have to.

come on i know its hard to ride horses in a jungle but its not that hard


1364ef No.518835

>>518829

>>518828

>>518831

>>518834

They should be capable at everything. There shouldn't be a single situation within reason where a Tank isn't useful to have.


ecd903 No.518836

>>518834

That's kinda the point, dismounted heavy cavalry becomes heavy infantry.


fc75d2 No.518838

File: c44bb848af0642d⋯.jpg (223.21 KB, 770x503, 770:503, defending_the_polish_banne….jpg)

>>518836

who said anything about dismounting? do you think cavalry cant be used as tarpit? unless they are against heavy anti cavalry shit without option of flanking they will do fine. do you think heavily armored unit on top of 500kg of pure muscle and hatred cant hold the line?


75aba7 No.518839

>>518838

We need to bring horses back into combat rolls outside of city's.


ecd903 No.518840

>>518838

I think most historical battles where they make a stand, the cavalries dismount.


a1666f No.518853

>>518823

Tanks are considered tanks


8f436e No.519193

File: 63072f98130411f⋯.png (1.17 MB, 1062x1062, 1:1, 63072f98130411ffcbc4e5df3f….png)

>>518839

You're a fucking idiot, the machine gun killed cavalry. so nowadays with every man and his dog armed with an automatic rifle, horses are even more irrelevant today than ever.


c37902 No.519195

>>518835

>Good morning Sergeant, we've received our new orders.

>We are to establish an OP and remain unobserved while we report back on hostile activity in the area.

>FIRE UP THE CHALLENGERS!

kek :^)


e3b967 No.519196

File: 0a2fe23f3269454⋯.jpg (23.46 KB, 300x404, 75:101, Osprey_NV_013_Scorpion.jpg)

>>519195

>coming from the country that invented the "tracked recon"

M8…


c37902 No.519199

>>519196

>Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle.

>Main Battle Tank.

>These are completely and definitely the same thing.


7bd4a9 No.519210

>>518823

If I had to refer to them as something like that, it'd either be heavy calvary, or something along the lines of 'armored cannon'.


464a2b No.519214

>>518839

>>519193

I think, that in modern-day combat, horses are only going to be used for logistics and transportation to and from battle.


c37902 No.519215

File: b97a7da391b5bd2⋯.jpg (186.76 KB, 795x503, 795:503, Wehrmacht logistics.jpg)

>>519214

>Horse-drawn logistics/transport.

That always works so well, doesn't it Hans.


75aba7 No.519216

>>519193

Et tu, satire?


33b40c No.519220

>>519196

RIP in peace Scorpion ;_;7


1364ef No.519221

File: 1c62e366724b4ea⋯.png (422.83 KB, 720x544, 45:34, 9796f61d1b81edcd01198b5522….png)

>>519195

>What is recon in force

Although I did say within reason

>>518839

>>519193

>>519214

>Bring back horses

I can't see how this will possibly end badly :^)


464a2b No.519224

>>519221

>saves gas

>also doubles as food

Yeah, me neither


c37902 No.519226

>>519221

>What is recon in force?

<What is the Coyote TSV?

<What is the Scimitar ARV?

<What is the Spartan?

<What is the Jackal 2?


eae8fc No.519233

Most of the tank regiments in the British army are old cavalry/lancer/dragoon regiments, so cavalry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_regiments_of_the_British_Army


f04477 No.519234

>>519224

>eating a horse

Are you chinese or what?


1364ef No.519235

>>519234

He shops at Tesco.


4b7f57 No.519237

>>519193

That really depends on how far down the rabbit hole of high velocity small caliber we go for rifle rounds. I mean if some .15 cal wildcat of the Eargesplitten Loudenboomer gets adopted as an GPMG round You're a fucking liar if you tell me you haven't seen stupider things actively considered in the time between mass-adoption and mass-throwing the fuckers away and scrambling for a real intermediate/full-power rifle round I can see cavalry and more importantly dragoons exploiting that valuable stop-gap time.


c37902 No.519239

File: 6f3d072fe1b836e⋯.jpg (6.66 KB, 267x200, 267:200, 1430948211624.jpg)

>>519237

>Eargesplitten Loudenboomer gets adopted as a GPMG round

That idea is as retarded as it is beautiful. If you had to convince a military to but it what would you say to them?


4b7f57 No.519240

>>519239

It's the perfect compromise between the old school of thought and the new school of thought. It pleases everyone, and it has no disadvantages.

It offers increased kinetic force capability while upholding the armed forces traditions and allowing us to network well into the 21st century.

Pentagon postings for everyone!

Oh lord what have I done?


32e098 No.519241

>>518823

Tankery


91515f No.519243

File: c5fc31a8920c94b⋯.gif (992.8 KB, 250x250, 1:1, image.gif)


c37902 No.519248

File: 09e372c5f45c3b1⋯.mp4 (114.27 KB, 640x360, 16:9, Johnny Bravo is Sickened, ….mp4)

>>519240

>MFW reading that post.

For the love God, whatever you're doing to yourself at the moment please stop. It's not good for you!


de08f7 No.519260

Tanks are artillery that isn't afraid of infantry


350a56 No.519273

File: a1fcc5244ef29cf⋯.jpg (25.63 KB, 550x377, 550:377, Light_Tank_Mark_V.jpg)

File: fb76ba0aa98ca2b⋯.png (135.83 KB, 602x320, 301:160, serveimage.png)

Clearly it is necessary to have two types of tank, one fast moving and lightly armoured cavalry tank, and one heavily armoured and slow moving infantry tank, acting as heavy infantry. An infantry tanks should have several turrets with multiple machineguns, and be capable of laying down a smoke screen.


c37902 No.519284

>>519273

Wouldn't swapping the infantry tanks for an up-armoured assault gun with some extra MGs mounted on the corners?


8c0cbe No.519288

>>519234

Fuck you Carlos, horse is delicious.

We didn't domesticate cows because they were tasty, we domesticated them because they were slow and stupid.

>>519234

Okay, sure, but then there's been a great deal of advancement in material science and mechanical engineering in the last umpteen years.

What if we had one tank that was sufficiently armored to withstand pretty much anything infantry could throw at it, while simultaneously being sanic fast? I know how much of a hard on you have for 'universal use equipment'.


2ca52c No.519294

>>519273

I know this thread has pretty much hit bottom, but I thought I'd add a brief summary and explanation of the history here.

1) In WWII it became clear that the heavy tanks moving at 5-15km/h on rough ground were essentially so slow that fixed artillery/anti-tank positions could take them out at beyond the heavy tanks range at leisure. Not to mention aircraft, which could not miss the lumbering target. This made the heavy tank obsolete for the one job it was supposed to do - attacking heavily defended fixed enemy positions.

2) So in the end of WWII all the major powers decided that the biggest useful tanks would be the medium tanks, since they could compete with light tanks for speed, and still carry enough armament to destroy fixed enemy positions. And they forgot the reason why they decided that!

3) Improvement in power plants eventually lead to increase in weights of medium tanks until the MBT was developed, which had the weight of WWII heavy tanks yet could move fairly fast on roads. In this way the heavy tank was resurrected, while the medium and light tank designation was ignored, or maintained in small numbers purely for cost reasons in the west, only Soviets maintained medium tanks.

4) In the 60s Soviets made the infantry fighting vehicle to replace the light tank and introduce some utility to it as well, by allowing it to carry a few troops. Other powers copied this and bungled the concept by insisting it only be as mobile as the armored personnel carriers and logistics trucks. The new "light tank" concept then couldn't keep up with the heavy tank, there was nothing in the middle, and the entire armored structure was unbalanced.

5) Nowadays military leaders tend to push for multirole. This is because if every vehicle you have is multirole, you're never left with your pants down by being a bad leader and sending the vehicles for wrong role to do wrong job. In essence it makes officers job easier.

I personally favor resurrection of these old concepts, but revamped to modern battlefields.

>Light tank - Armed and armored against infantry, light vehicles, and light sandbag fortifications. Crew of three to four, can carry three times its operating crew in infantry support (9-12). It's main job is protecting own infantry and engaging enemy infantry positions, armament is focused on that with main gun being a large HMG (14.5-15.5mm) with an AGL or small mortar (50-60mm) for indirect fire and GPMG (7.62) covering other axes.

>Medium tank - Armed and armored against any ground threat that isn't a medium or heavy tank or direct hit from heavy artillery. Crew of three or four, carries twice the crew in passengers (6-8). Main purpose is engaging enemy fortifications, logistics, and vehicles, and acting in insurgencies. Armament is medium caliber high explosive cannon (75-100mm), a heavy machine gun (~12.7mm) and a GPMG (~7.62).

>Heavy tank - Armed and armored against all ground threats, as much as possible. Crew of four to five, usually carries no passengers, but can carry a pair of replacements for crew in long deployments, or an emergency medevac. Main cannon (120-152mm) can penetrate other heavy tanks, several GPMG covering axes for protection. Purpose is destruction of enemy tanks and pushing through heaviest fire to destroy fortification.

All three vehicles fast enough to avoid airborne threats and keep formation, all three vehicles taking advantage of latest in anti rocket protection. Controls inter-operable by similar trained crew, some parts of drive train, tracks, power plant, and fire control system are interchangeable. Entry into a conflict can be scaled; for example if it's a rebellion where enemy just has infantry and civilian vehicles, you send light tanks; if enemy starts using armed vehicles, artillery and fortifications you send in the mediums; and if enemy uses armor or extremely heavy fortifications you send in heavies. Using USA as an example they could get away with having 1000 heavies, 5000 mediums, and 12000 lights and have the better combat ability for same price as 6000 Abrams (underarmed heavy), 6000 Bradley (light with identity complex), 6000 M113 (underarmed light) garbage mix.

But this pipe dream will never happen because if it did, officers would need to be trained to use disparate systems effectively, instead of using multirole system in a mediocre way.


af3724 No.519295

How big of a mortar would you need to rape armor?


2ca52c No.519298

>>519295

Standing armor like a bunker, around 200-400mm with HE shell, or something smaller with HEAT shells. Downside is a HEAT shell only kills people inside, the bunker is still left pretty solid behind, meaning enemy can still take cover in it.

Moving armor…. main problem isn't the size of the shell, even 80mm HEAT shell could disable a MBT if it hit roof. A mortar shell moves slowly, it's often subsonic, if it arcs it increases the time it travels. A tank changes predicted location 10-20m in 1 second meaning a mortar is going to miss an alert tank at rifle ranges. If enemy armor has ANY kind of cannon or machine gun they can shoot you at over 1km, and most appropriate armor uses will be surrounded by infantry with rifles. So how do you approach with your mortar to rifle ranges to kill the tank?!?!


e3b967 No.519321

File: 81dc9a7991599a9⋯.jpg (53.66 KB, 600x351, 200:117, Scimitar-Mk-2.JPG)

>>519220

The three inch (and 90mm) gun scorpion was shit strelok. You should be happy that the scimitar/sabre has a gun that the chassis deserves. And doesn't gas the crew.


f3f283 No.519381

File: b087d1973062d1a⋯.webm (4.8 MB, 320x240, 4:3, Strix Precision Guided 12….webm)

>>519294

Or just use 1 tonk with a 40-60mm autocannon, hypervelocity missiles, passive armour against 40-60mm autocannons, and active defence against missiles. By active defence I mean put both ERA and an ADS system on it. Preferably Rheinmetall's. You know, you only need a bigger tank to put bigger cannons on it, and you really only need the bigger cannon to shoor at other tanks.

>>519298

Vid related.


9e382d No.519694

Heavy infantry fell out of use centuries ago, so calvary.


f63847 No.519711

>>518823

The military nomenclature used for tank units here is the same that was used for cavalry.


350a56 No.519784

>>519294

I just want to say that I was actually making a joke on how inter-war OP's post is, by posting an inter-war philosophy on tanks.


12c66f No.521498

>>519288

>We didn't domesticate cows because they were tasty, we domesticated them because they were slow and stupid.

Cows weren't very slow or stupid until AFTER they had been domesticated and selectively bred to make them so for centuries.


55b0ac No.526667

File: c745bde58823cdd⋯.jpg (188.31 KB, 991x655, 991:655, t28_captured_by_finns.jpg)

>/pol/ does tankery

>>>/pol/10790466

>>>/pol/10833032


0b54c4 No.526675

>>518823

Probably heavy cavalry though the comparison is not direct.


e1c4eb No.526676

>>521498

Cows aren't stupid they've just become complacent like people.


0b54c4 No.526677

File: a04dd035d07cdeb⋯.png (2.57 MB, 3508x2480, 877:620, hetzer (5).png)

>>526667

>>>/pol/10790466

He's not strictly speaking wrong about the Germany economy being somewhat unstable and requiring aggression in 1941 or about 1942 being the original plan for war the rest of that is pro-USSR nonsense.

>>>/pol/10833032

Good god.


556489 No.526678

File: f9971fd0dc63b6e⋯.jpg (103.87 KB, 1000x492, 250:123, 2011_09_01.jpg)

File: c1fd9722af446bf⋯.jpg (54.58 KB, 560x420, 4:3, 025.jpg)

File: e022dd558ab9185⋯.png (340.52 KB, 1200x812, 300:203, 1200px-Egyptian-Chariot.png)

its not like carts of many kinds even with canons werent used for milenia on battlefields.


b80bc1 No.527835

File: 89fc9df4a891a58⋯.jpg (21.22 KB, 351x351, 1:1, 89fc9df4a891a5854ab3c21238….jpg)


d43ede No.527881

>>518823

Cavalry, I don't see how they could be considered infantry.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1cc / 8teen / fur / gdp2083 / hydrus / leftpol / russian / startrek ]