North Korea´s Kim Jong Un claims the army has the world´s most powerful tanks

[Bleipriester]

Not nonsense. This isn't WW2 anymore. Man portable anti-tank weapons are far more common, and far more dangerous than they were then. Artillery and aircraft are also much more accurate. Ultimately, our Abrams get scrapped just the same as a T-72 when a 155mm round hits it. At least the T-72 doesn't cost an arm and a leg to produce. IFVs and APCs offer adequate protection and firepower for a fraction of the price. They also usually weigh less and have better top speeds.

During WWII, many thousands of tanks were destroyed by ground attack aircraft, artillery and handheld anti-tank weapons.
The war in Ukraine shows that tanks play an integral role.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

During WWII, many thousands of tanks were destroyed by ground attack aircraft, artillery and handheld anti-tank weapons.
The war in Ukraine shows that tanks play an integral role.

Handheld anti-tank weapons during WW2 were waaaaaaaay less common. Ground attack aircraft and artillery were way less accurate. Like I said, an IFV or APC can do adequately just about anything a tank can do at a lower cost, and a higher speed.

 

[Bleipriester]

Handheld anti-tank weapons during WW2 were waaaaaaaay less common. Ground attack aircraft and artillery were way less accurate. Like I said, an IFV or APC can do adequately just about anything a tank can do at a lower cost, and a higher speed.

Germany produced millions of them during WWII.

The German and Russian ground attackers were very effective, by the way.

An IFV or APC is often very lightly armored. At very short distances, even rifles may pierce their armor.
The regular MBT provides for massive armor and firepower and great mobility.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

Germany produced millions of them during WWII.

The German and Russian ground attackers were very effective, by the way.

An IFV or APC is often very lightly armored. At very short distances, even rifles may pierce their armor.
The regular MBT provides for massive armor and firepower and great mobility.

A modern IFV or APC should be able to resist a 7.62 armor piercing round, which is the most commonly used full size rifle round used. Anything larger than 7.62 is probably crew served, or stationary. And once you start getting into crew served or stationary weapons, then you're talking about weapons that'll probably destroy the MBT as well.

 

[Bleipriester]

A modern IFV or APC should be able to resist a 7.62 armor piercing round, which is the most commonly used full size rifle round used. Anything larger than 7.62 is probably crew served, or stationary. And once you start getting into crew served or stationary weapons, then you're talking about weapons that'll probably destroy the MBT as well.

This is not the case.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

This is not the case.

Hell, even most 7.62s are crew served, if you wanna be pedantic about it.

 

[Bleipriester]

Hell, even most 7.62s are crew served, if you wanna be pedantic about it.

The fact remains, that MBT are better protected and armed. It was said to be obsolete because a regular war was not expected to take place anymore. Even that was BS, what do you expect from an "expert" who thinks there will be no more real wars?

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

The fact remains, that MBT are better protected and armed. It was said to be obsolete because a regular war was not expected to take place anymore. Even that was BS, what do you expect from an "expert" who thinks there will be no more real wars?

They're not protected or armored enough. They still get popped like tin cans by Javelins, Konkurs, TOW, etc.

 

[Bleipriester]

They're not protected or armored enough. They still get popped like tin cans by Javelins, Konkurs, TOW, etc.

Sure, every weapon has its weaknesses. Every. So if you think tanks are obsolete, every other weapon is too.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

Sure, every weapon has its weaknesses. Every. So if you think tanks are obsolete, every other weapon is too.

That's why Ukraine is a WW1 scenario. The front is barely moving. That wont change until one side finds some breakthrough weapon.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not nonsense. This isn't WW2 anymore. Man portable anti-tank weapons are far more common, and far more dangerous than they were then. Artillery and aircraft are also much more accurate. Ultimately, our Abrams get scrapped just the same as a T-72 when a 155mm round hits it. At least the T-72 doesn't cost an arm and a leg to produce. IFVs and APCs offer adequate protection and firepower for a fraction of the price. They also usually weigh less and have better top speeds.

When an Abrams gets destroyed, the crew walks away with minor injuries at worst. When a Russian tank gets destroyed, the crew dies either from concussion when the autoloader explodes, or from burning when the fuel and propellant for the ammo catch fire. When you see destroyed Russian thank, the turret is almost always missing because the ammo in the autoloader detonated making the turret pop up like a Jack-in-the Box.

 

[Bleipriester]

That's why Ukraine is a WW1 scenario. The front is barely moving. That wont change until one side finds some breakthrough weapon.

As long as Ukraine can make up for their losses, this will continue.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

As long as Ukraine can make up for their losses, this will continue.

During WW2 most of the countries involved had no trouble making up for losses, the problem was that they weren't making up for them fast enough because of how the fronts were moving.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

When an Abrams gets destroyed, the crew walks away with minor injuries at worst. When a Russian tank gets destroyed, the crew dies either from concussion when the autoloader explodes, or from burning when the fuel and propellant for the ammo catch fire. When you see destroyed Russian thank, the turret is almost always missing because the ammo in the autoloader detonated making the turret pop up like a Jack-in-the Box.

"Yeah, the tank blew up, but everyone was okay." That's total propaganda. You seriously believe that? If your tank gets nailed, odds are you're screwed. It's worth noting that that autoloader makes it so that there's one crew member less, so when the tank blows up, your losses are reduced. In any case, it's beyond the point I'm making here. I think tanks are obsolete. Simple as.

 

[Bleipriester]

During WW2 most of the countries involved had no trouble making up for losses, the problem was that they weren't making up for them fast enough because of how the fronts were moving.

Sure, Blitzkrieg can be overwhelming. Look up the losses there, though. The western allies had low losses each but combined their losses were greater than Germany´s frontiers with them had. It was Germany, that had the problem with casualties, though.

 

[justoffal]

Looks remarkably like a russian T-72 with some add on plating.


View attachment 917349

That's exactly what they are

 

[AZrailwhale]

"Yeah, the tank blew up, but everyone was okay." That's total propaganda. You seriously believe that? If your tank gets nailed, odds are you're screwed. It's worth noting that that autoloader makes it so that there's one crew member less, so when the tank blows up, your losses are reduced. In any case, it's beyond the point I'm making here. I think tanks are obsolete. Simple as.

Check the stats. All the explosive items like ammo in a Abrams are behind blast proof bulkheads with blow-off panels to direct explosions away from the crew. In Russian tanks it's all right in the crew compartment. One hit and the entire crew dies.
Here is a comprehensive list of destroyed and damaged Abrams in the Persian Gulf Wars

:

.	Identification Number	Type of Weapon	Date and place	Description of damage	Casualties
1.	Bumper B-31[12][13][14] TF 1-5 CAV	Mine	February 19 Ruqi Pocket	Tracks/Engine	None
2.	Unknown number[15] 1st Brigade, 2nd Armored Division	Mine	February 24 Southern Kuwait	Tracks, One M1 tank struck a mine in the breach and lost some road wheels. No one in the tank was injured, and the tank was back in action within a day.	None
3.	Bumper K-42[16] 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment	Struck by DPICM artillery	February 26 73 Easting	Loader machine-gun and left fuel cell destroyed	1 WIA
4.	Bumper B-66[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	Three DU kinetic energy rounds, after being hit by an Iraqi RPG	February 26 Norfolk line	Penetration in the hull, below the turret Ammunition blown-up	1 KIA, 3 WIAs
5.	Bumper B-22[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	One DU kinetic energy round	February 26 Norfolk line	Front slope hit with no internal damage	1 WIA
6.	Bumper A-14[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	One DU kinetic energy round	February 26 Norfolk line	One hit in the left side of the hull. Extensive damage by fire	3 WIAs
7.	Bumper A-31[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	Splinters of one DU kinetic energy penetrator	February 26 Norfolk line	Hit in the rear left hull	None
8.	Bumper A-33[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	Two DU rounds, after being hit by TOW missile	February 26 Norfolk line	Double penetration of the hull	3 WIAs
9.	Bumper D-24[17] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	Small caliber shaped charge	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Impact on NBC exhausts, compartment penetrated	2 WIAs
10.	Bumper B-23[17][18] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	Large caliber shaped charge, then hit by an unknown round, likely a KE (non-DU)	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Two hits, one on the rear grills, another penetrated both sides of the hull. Catastrophic damage by fire	1 WIA
11.	Bumper C-12[17] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	One DU kinetic energy penetrator, then hit by anti-tank missile	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	KE round achieved a double penetration of the hull. The anti-tank missile set the storage area of the turret on fire	None
12.	Bumper C-66[17] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	Two small shaped charges	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Small penetration of the left rear side of the hull. Impact on the turret defeated by armor	3 WIAs
13.	Bumper C-12[19] TF 4-8th CAV, 3rd Armored Division	73 mm shell from a BMP-1	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Minor damage to sponson box and .50 machine-gun	1 WIA
14.	Bumper B-24[20] TF 4-8th CAV, 3rd Armored Division	Enemy indirect fire	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Damaged to sponson box and duffle bags	None
15.	Bumper C-24[21] TF 4-8th CAV, 3rd Armored Division	Friendly DPICM	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Storage area shredded by shrapnel Main gun punctured	None
16.	Unknown number 197th Brigade, 24 Infantry Division	Crippled by enemy fire, then destroyed by DU rounds	February 27 Assault on Tallil airfield	Ammunition blown-up	None
17.	Unknown number 197th Brigade, 24 Infantry Division	Stuck in mud, then destroyed by DU rounds	February 27 Assault on Tallil airfield	Ammunition blown-up	None
18.	Unknown number 197th Brigade, 24 Infantry Division	Stuck in mud, then destroyed by DU rounds	February 27 Assault on Tallil airfield	Ammunition blown-up	None
19.	Bumper HQ66[22][23] Commander tank, TF 4-64 Armor, 24 Infantry Division	Two conventional KE or HEAT rounds from a 100 mm gun	February 27 South-west of Basra	120 mm gunner's primary sight (GPS) damaged and fuel-cell punctured. Sight replaced next morning. Tank continued in combat.	None
20.	Unknown number Turret number:5840U Hull number10060[24]	Three conventional KE rounds from an Iraqi T-72[25]	Unknown date/location	Two partial penetrations on the rear turret right side (possible fire in the storage area). Cosmetic damage on the turret front DU left armor plate.	None
21.	Bumper A-22[26] 2nd Platoon, A Company, TF 4-64, 24 Infantry Division	Secondary explosions from an Iraqi T-72[27]	March 2 Rumeilah Oilfields	Storage area devastated by fire. Ammunition blown-up.	1 W

The whole table didn't print so I will post the casualties. In all those destroyed tanks, there was one crewman killed and nineteen suffered injuries, most minor.

In the decade long Iraq war four Abrams crewmen were killed and one wounded plus four Marines drowned when their Abrams fell through a bridge. Most of the combat casualties were caused by Iranian suppled forged penetrator IEDs or in one case a massive improvised mine with over a thousand pounds of explosives.
Contrast that to hundreds of Russian built tanks in the Persian Gulf, Iraqi and Ukranian wars where the entire crew was killed by the turret popping off from the ammo exploding.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

Check the stats. All the explosive items like ammo in a Abrams are behind blast proof bulkheads with blow-off panels to direct explosions away from the crew. In Russian tanks it's all right in the crew compartment. One hit and the entire crew dies.
Here is a comprehensive list of destroyed and damaged Abrams in the Persian Gulf Wars

:

.	Identification Number	Type of Weapon	Date and place	Description of damage	Casualties
1.	Bumper B-31[12][13][14] TF 1-5 CAV	Mine	February 19 Ruqi Pocket	Tracks/Engine	None
2.	Unknown number[15] 1st Brigade, 2nd Armored Division	Mine	February 24 Southern Kuwait	Tracks, One M1 tank struck a mine in the breach and lost some road wheels. No one in the tank was injured, and the tank was back in action within a day.	None
3.	Bumper K-42[16] 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment	Struck by DPICM artillery	February 26 73 Easting	Loader machine-gun and left fuel cell destroyed	1 WIA
4.	Bumper B-66[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	Three DU kinetic energy rounds, after being hit by an Iraqi RPG	February 26 Norfolk line	Penetration in the hull, below the turret Ammunition blown-up	1 KIA, 3 WIAs
5.	Bumper B-22[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	One DU kinetic energy round	February 26 Norfolk line	Front slope hit with no internal damage	1 WIA
6.	Bumper A-14[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	One DU kinetic energy round	February 26 Norfolk line	One hit in the left side of the hull. Extensive damage by fire	3 WIAs
7.	Bumper A-31[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	Splinters of one DU kinetic energy penetrator	February 26 Norfolk line	Hit in the rear left hull	None
8.	Bumper A-33[17] TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)	Two DU rounds, after being hit by TOW missile	February 26 Norfolk line	Double penetration of the hull	3 WIAs
9.	Bumper D-24[17] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	Small caliber shaped charge	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Impact on NBC exhausts, compartment penetrated	2 WIAs
10.	Bumper B-23[17][18] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	Large caliber shaped charge, then hit by an unknown round, likely a KE (non-DU)	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Two hits, one on the rear grills, another penetrated both sides of the hull. Catastrophic damage by fire	1 WIA
11.	Bumper C-12[17] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	One DU kinetic energy penetrator, then hit by anti-tank missile	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	KE round achieved a double penetration of the hull. The anti-tank missile set the storage area of the turret on fire	None
12.	Bumper C-66[17] TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division	Two small shaped charges	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Small penetration of the left rear side of the hull. Impact on the turret defeated by armor	3 WIAs
13.	Bumper C-12[19] TF 4-8th CAV, 3rd Armored Division	73 mm shell from a BMP-1	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Minor damage to sponson box and .50 machine-gun	1 WIA
14.	Bumper B-24[20] TF 4-8th CAV, 3rd Armored Division	Enemy indirect fire	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Damaged to sponson box and duffle bags	None
15.	Bumper C-24[21] TF 4-8th CAV, 3rd Armored Division	Friendly DPICM	February 26 Assault on Tawakalna Division	Storage area shredded by shrapnel Main gun punctured	None
16.	Unknown number 197th Brigade, 24 Infantry Division	Crippled by enemy fire, then destroyed by DU rounds	February 27 Assault on Tallil airfield	Ammunition blown-up	None
17.	Unknown number 197th Brigade, 24 Infantry Division	Stuck in mud, then destroyed by DU rounds	February 27 Assault on Tallil airfield	Ammunition blown-up	None
18.	Unknown number 197th Brigade, 24 Infantry Division	Stuck in mud, then destroyed by DU rounds	February 27 Assault on Tallil airfield	Ammunition blown-up	None
19.	Bumper HQ66[22][23] Commander tank, TF 4-64 Armor, 24 Infantry Division	Two conventional KE or HEAT rounds from a 100 mm gun	February 27 South-west of Basra	120 mm gunner's primary sight (GPS) damaged and fuel-cell punctured. Sight replaced next morning. Tank continued in combat.	None
20.	Unknown number Turret number:5840U Hull number10060[24]	Three conventional KE rounds from an Iraqi T-72[25]	Unknown date/location	Two partial penetrations on the rear turret right side (possible fire in the storage area). Cosmetic damage on the turret front DU left armor plate.	None
21.	Bumper A-22[26] 2nd Platoon, A Company, TF 4-64, 24 Infantry Division	Secondary explosions from an Iraqi T-72[27]	March 2 Rumeilah Oilfields	Storage area devastated by fire. Ammunition blown-up.	1 W

Yeah, no artillery, or aircraft, or modern ATGMs involved. And why would there be? It's the Iraqi 'Army'. And, hell, think about this logically for a second. Do you seriously think I'm just going to leave your disabled tank alone after I've zeroed it for artillery/air support? Fuck no. I'm just gonna follow up with more. What're you gonna do, "escape the tank"? And go where? The area is under fire from artillery or air power. You're as safe outside as you are inside.

 

[justoffal]

Yeah, no artillery, or aircraft, or modern ATGMs involved. And why would there be? It's the Iraqi 'Army'.

Atomic pitchforks!

 

[Rigby5]

Not nonsense. This isn't WW2 anymore. Man portable anti-tank weapons are far more common, and far more dangerous than they were then. Artillery and aircraft are also much more accurate. Ultimately, our Abrams get scrapped just the same as a T-72 when a 155mm round hits it. At least the T-72 doesn't cost an arm and a leg to produce. IFVs and APCs offer adequate protection and firepower for a fraction of the price. They also usually weigh less and have better top speeds.

I do not think tanks are ever going away.
While anti-tank weapons are better, most still rely on a molten jet to bore through the armor, and that is easily prevented by sandwiching armor with ceramics.
Artillery and aircraft are more accurate, but more fragile. Aircraft are easily downed with SAMs and artillery no longer has a range advantage that prevents tanks from wiping the unarmored artillery out.

Tanks are moving to a cellular design where it the armor gets penetrated in one location, it no longer takes out the whole tank. It is not just a single container with an exterior armored shell any more. Each occupant has its own internal armor as well.