Ron Paul: "We Spent a Billion Dollars Fighting the Houthis…and Lost'
(ronpaulinstitute.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (84)
sorted by:
It is amazing how many warthunder players upvoted you and downvoted me. Internet warriors that have no fucking clue.
Tanks are flexible and direct fire. Artillery is not. Tanks are essential in any theater where air dominance, not air superiority, isn't assured. Tanks are also essential in theaters where we have AD if the goal isn't just "bomb everything and leave" because planes can't take or hold ground.
Your planes still being in the sky don't matter anymore when the enemy tank commander is eating breakfast in your cafeteria.
You may as well say infantry is redundant because we have nukes. Airforce makes MBTs redundant is such a stupid statement, boiling war down to a rock paper scissors equation of who wins in a fight between two isolated assets.
Look, you are right. Every point you made is correct.
However, unless there are tanks fighting tanks, all of those roles can be fulfilled by a medium tank or a light tank, which is faster, doesn't destroy roads and gets better fuel economy. For example the entire continent of Australia doesn't need a MBT because no one is ever going to land a MBT. If they do the Aussies will send sappers (combat engineers with explosives) and SAS to blow up their diesel tankage.
I misspoke when I said that a modern air force makes tanks redundant. The situation of air superiority makes them a big fucking target, and then on fire. See Gulf War 2, etc. The specific example I gave of a modern howitzer is because they are much better at "shoot and scoot" to evade attack by aircraft.
Modern MBTs don't destroy roads. Rubber track pads prevent this. Bridges with weight limits yes, modern roads no. The equivalent to light tanks currently fielded are not appreciably faster than an abrams. They are significantly more vulnerable to modern infantry anti-armor weaponry.
Tracked guns that aren't MBTs exist. They are slower than the abrams and less effective in direct fire.
You are examining things from ww2 design perspectives. Modern equipment is different. A bradley is functionally a light tank. It is penetrable by a .50. It is not faster than an abrams, it is much worse armored and higher profile. It's nearly the same size, as well. It does not have the versatility of the main gun of the abrams. Tanks do not just shoot kinetic penetration rounds. They have high explosive, or canister (big shotgun) rounds as well. Other modern MBTs can use barrel launched missiles. One abrams platoon used effectively is easily superior to a bradley company. This is proven in war game exercises frequently.
The only nation that would even conceivably attempt to take Australia would be China. If they were invaded, Australia would not be able to stop them from getting armored vehicles on land. The MBT is the most effective armored vehicle for ground combat.
Yes they do. They weigh >100t each. How many do you think can trundle down a road before it is mush? I watch the (very few) Abrams saddle up for exercises and see each and every one loaded onto a custom low-loader to be transported to and from the exercise, specifically to prevent a convoy of Abrams (with rubber track pads) from wrecking the roads.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3901/14349238546_eee8f20a41_b.jpg
Logistics is king. Diesel is the resource, and unless the Chinese Navy lands in fucking Darwin, they are going to have to haul their supplies across the most rugged continent on earth.
Australia just signed a contract for the delivery for 75 M1A2 Abrams, and I am not alone in thinking that for the job the Abrams is overweight and over armored.
From:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-tanks-are-overkill-and-overweight/
As amusing as it is to watch you stroke your e-peen and daydream about tank on tank battles in the outback, Main Battle Tanks are not the most effective armored vehicle for ground combat under every circumstance.
Vs actual knowledge and experience. An abrams is 72 tons. They are loaded on the superheavy trucks for transport to save fuel, maintenance and operational time. They can drive on roads fine. The steel tracks are what gave tanks the reputation for destroying roads - the weight distribution of tracks actually has less pounds of weight per square inch of surface contact area than cars.
And you're trying to twist this entire argument from "MBTs bad" to "my irrelevant country doesn't need them" and still saying wrong things. It is the king of armored warfare. It is the best choice for infantry support and any direct engagement. It is not a troop transport, it is not an anti-air platform, but in any kind of situation where vehicles or troops need to be destroyed and terrain permits vehicles, the abrams will do it better, faster and have the highest survivability.