This is a response to No, The Tank Is Not Dead.
The case for tanks
The argument for the continued relevance of tanks is based on their unique combination of capabilities, which are critical for modern warfare. Even with the rise of threats like anti-tank missiles and drones, tanks still offer an unbeatable blend of firepower, mobility, protection, and flexibility that no other single system can currently match.
The main reason tanks remain valuable is their ability to deliver fast, accurate, and sustained direct fire with a large-caliber cannon against a wide range of targets, no matter the weather. This quick, decisive firepower is vital for both offensive and defensive operations. It allows tanks to quickly engage enemy forces and switch between targets rapidly. Unlike slower missile systems or short-range handheld weapons, the tank’s main gun delivers faster and more impactful fire. Additionally, modern tanks can engage targets while on the move, which is crucial for maintaining momentum during offensive operations.
The ongoing use of tanks by major military powers, like the US Army’s reinforcement of armored divisions, shows that tanks are still seen as necessary. Some nations have reduced their tank forces temporarily or strategically, but these decisions are usually based on specific needs, not because tanks are considered obsolete. For instance, the US Marine Corps’ decision to reduce its tank force is a strategic shift, not a statement that tanks are no longer important. The Army can still provide heavy armor when needed.
Beyond firepower, tanks offer a layered approach to survivability, which goes beyond just their armor. This “survivability onion” includes defensive systems like smoke launchers and active protection systems, which work together with the armor to help tanks resist a variety of threats. While external protections, like air defense and supporting infantry, help minimize threats before they can reach the tank, the tank itself remains a robust core of defense.
Some argue that cheaper anti-tank weapons could make tanks obsolete, but they often ignore the fact that tanks are essential for achieving decisive victories in warfare. Tanks are critical for projecting power, breaking through enemy defenses, and seizing key objectives—roles that are hard to fill with only defensive systems. Although anti-tank missiles and other systems are a threat, the development of countermeasures, along with the tank’s inherent abilities, ensures that tanks will continue to play a key role on the battlefield.
In conclusion, as long as military doctrine demands a platform that can deliver powerful, mobile, protected, and flexible direct fire capabilities, tanks will remain an essential part of modern combined arms forces. No other system can fully take on this critical role.
Flaws
Dismissive….
The article tries hard to make tanks seem important for today’s wars, but it has a big problem. It doesn’t take the dangers of modern anti-tank weapons seriously enough. It’s like saying, “Tanks are great!” while ignoring the fact that the other side has weapons specifically designed to destroy them. The article mentions things like anti-tank missiles and drones, but it quickly brushes them aside. It talks about tanks having armor and special defenses, but it doesn’t explain how well those defenses actually work against the newest, most dangerous weapons.
Think of it like this: imagine someone saying a castle is still the best defense, even after cannons were invented. They might mention the castle walls, but they wouldn’t talk about how easily cannons can smash those walls. That’s what this article does. It focuses on what makes tanks seem strong, without really looking at how easily they can be defeated. It vaguely mentions that there are ways to protect tanks, but it never goes into any detail. It doesn’t talk about the constant battle between making better tanks and making better weapons to destroy them.
The article feels more like an advertisement for tanks than a real, honest look at their strengths and weaknesses. Because it ignores or downplays the serious threats, it makes the argument for keeping tanks seem much weaker than it should. It leaves the reader wondering if the writer really understands how much warfare has changed, and how dangerous it is for tanks now. It’s not enough to just say tanks are protected; you have to prove they can survive against the weapons that are out there today, and the article doesn’t do that.
…In the Face of Tangible, Actualized, and Concrete Threats
The article arguing for the continued relevance of tanks suffers from a fundamental flaw: it dismisses the very real, proven dangers posed by modern anti-tank weaponry. This isn’t about theoretical threats or future possibilities; it’s about weapons that are currently being used to destroy tanks on battlefields around the world. The article’s downplaying of these tangible, actualized, and concrete threats is a major weakness. It mentions anti-tank missiles and drones, but treats them almost as minor inconveniences, rather than the existential challenges they represent.
The article talks about tank armor and defenses, but it doesn’t grapple with the fact that modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) are specifically designed to defeat that armor. These aren’t hypothetical weapons; they are in use now, and their effectiveness has been demonstrated repeatedly. Similarly, the growing use of weaponized drones presents a clear and present danger that the article barely acknowledges. These aren’t future threats; they are current realities of warfare. To simply say tanks have “defensive systems” without explaining how those systems deal with these specific, proven threats is incredibly misleading.
It’s like arguing that a wooden ship is still a viable warship in the age of ironclads and cannons. The threat isn’t theoretical; the cannonballs are real, and they’re tearing through wooden hulls. This article makes a similar mistake. It focuses on the perceived strengths of the tank without seriously considering the demonstrated power of the weapons designed to destroy it. This isn’t just being dismissive; it’s being dismissive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The argument feels dangerously out of touch with the reality of modern combat, where tanks are facing – and often losing to – very real and very effective anti-tank weaponry.
The case for tanks 2
Tanks are definitely not outdated weapons, even with all the new anti-tank missiles and drones out there. They still do things on the battlefield that nothing else can. One major thing is their powerful cannon. It can fire quickly and accurately, hitting targets almost instantly. This is super important when you’re attacking and need to knock out enemy positions fast. Things like artillery or missiles take longer to get ready and aren’t always as precise, especially when things are moving quickly.
It’s also a mistake to think tanks are just big, slow targets. Modern tanks aren’t just about thick armor anymore. They have sophisticated systems to protect themselves, like sensors that can detect incoming missiles and even shoot them down before they hit. Plus, tanks don’t work alone. They’re part of a team with infantry, air support, and other vehicles. This “combined arms” approach means tanks have help spotting threats and dealing with them, making them much harder to kill. Smart tactics are just as important as armor.
The key is that nothing else combines firepower, mobility, and protection like a tank does. Infantry fighting vehicles can carry troops, but they don’t have the same punch. Artillery can hit targets far away, but it can’t move and fight at the same time like a tank can. Tanks give the whole team the ability to push forward, break through enemy lines, and capture important ground.
And tanks aren’t standing still. They’re constantly being upgraded with new technology. Think better sensors, improved defenses against missiles, and maybe even lasers or robots in the future. This means they’re always adapting to new threats. Some countries have even tried getting rid of tanks, only to realize they still needed them and brought them back. That shows how important they still are. In short, tanks are powerful, adaptable, and a crucial part of a winning team on today’s battlefield. They are far from obsolete.
The case for IFVs
Despite their vulnerabilities on the modern battlefield, infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) are far from obsolete. They provide essential capabilities to infantry forces by offering mobility, firepower, and protection, making them crucial for both offensive and defensive operations. IFVs help infantry quickly concentrate for attacks and disperse afterward to avoid enemy fire, which is vital in modern warfare. Their mobility allows forces to assemble faster, while their armor provides protection during movement and assaults.
Additionally, IFVs’ integrated firepower, like autocannons, significantly supports infantry in breaking through defended positions. This combination of speed, protection, and firepower makes infantry units more effective in operations and increases their chances of survival in intense engagements. Even in more static combat situations, IFVs remain essential by providing armored transport for troop rotation, casualty evacuation, and resupply, offering much better protection than unarmored vehicles.
The ongoing demand for IFVs in high-intensity conflicts highlights their importance. Even with losses, they continue to be indispensable for modern infantry. The sensors, weapon systems, mobility, and armor of IFVs are key to conducting successful mobile operations, making them a vital part of combined arms warfare.
Flaws
Dismissive…
The article tries to argue that Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) are still important, but it makes a big mistake. It doesn’t take the serious dangers of modern anti-tank weapons seriously enough. It’s like saying, “IFVs are great!” while ignoring that the enemy has many ways to destroy them. The article mentions that IFVs have mobility, firepower, and protection, but it brushes aside how easily they can be taken out. It’s like saying a car is safe because it has seatbelts, but ignoring that it can still be crushed in a serious accident.
Think of it like this: imagine someone saying knights in shining armor are still the best warriors, even after guns were invented. They might mention the knight’s armor, but they wouldn’t talk about how easily bullets can pierce that armor. This article does something similar. It highlights what should make IFVs effective, without really considering how vulnerable they are to modern weapons. It vaguely mentions that IFVs help infantry, but it doesn’t explain how they survive against things like advanced anti-tank missiles, drones, and even artillery.
The article feels more like a sales pitch for IFVs than a realistic assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. Because it ignores or downplays the serious threats, it weakens the argument for keeping IFVs around. It makes you wonder if the writer really understands how dangerous the modern battlefield is for these vehicles. It’s not enough to say IFVs are useful; you have to prove they can survive against the weapons being used today, and the article doesn’t do that.
…In the Face of Tangible, Actualized, and Concrete Threats
The article claiming IFVs are still essential suffers from a major flaw: it ignores the very real, proven dangers they face from modern anti-tank weaponry. This isn’t about theoretical risks; it’s about weapons currently destroying IFVs in real-world conflicts. The article’s downplaying of these tangible, actualized, and concrete threats is a critical weakness. It mentions that IFVs offer “protection,” but this is incredibly misleading without acknowledging how easily that protection is overcome.
Modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), readily available and widely used, are specifically designed to penetrate the armor of IFVs. These aren’t hypothetical weapons; their effectiveness has been demonstrated repeatedly. Similarly, the increasing use of weaponized drones, even relatively inexpensive ones, poses a massive threat that the article barely touches upon. And it’s not just specialized anti-tank weapons; artillery and even mortar fire can quickly disable or destroy an IFV. These are current realities of war. To say IFVs provide “protection” without explaining how they survive these specific, proven threats is dangerously simplistic.
It’s like claiming a thin wooden shield is still effective protection in an age of gunpowder weapons. The threat isn’t theoretical; the bullets are real, and they’re going right through the shield. This article makes the same mistake. It emphasizes the supposed advantages of the IFV without seriously considering the demonstrated power of the weapons designed to defeat it. This isn’t just dismissive; it’s dismissive in the face of overwhelming evidence. The argument feels detached from the reality of modern combat, where IFVs are frequently destroyed by very real and very effective anti-tank weaponry.