For the first time since 1944, there are no US tanks in Germany - Polidicks

I guess the tank era is over, as far as first world combat goes. If a war broke out between large counties, the kind of countries that could afford large amounts of tanks, then it's probable that all those tanks will be destroyed by missiles before they could do much of anything, because if you can afford the tanks you can afford the missiles. So basing large amounts of tanks anywhere is really a waste of money.

I[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40246221]I guess the tank era is over, as far as first world combat goes. If a war broke out between large counties, the kind of countries that could afford large amounts of tanks, then it's probable that all those tanks will be destroyed by missiles before they could do much of anything, because if you can afford the tanks you can afford the missiles. So basing large amounts of tanks anywhere is really a waste of money.[/QUOTE] Maybe not if you had the mobile anti-air assets to go along with it. ZPUs are still kinda scary, and any mobile SAM launcher would spell out bad news as well.

[QUOTE=Matriax;40244807]British Forces Germany is closing down before the decade is out as well. Let's hope the Germans don't decide to fire up the panzers again... lol jokes.[/QUOTE] [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg[/t] If I ever joined the US military I would've loved to be stationed in Germany. I think it would've been cool to hang out with soldiers of another nation

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;40246415][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg[/t] If I ever joined the US military I would've loved to be stationed in Germany. I think it would've been cool to hang out with soldiers of another nation[/QUOTE] I love the fact that they still use the 42 (or an updated variant of it, I don't know)

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40246221]I guess the tank era is over, as far as first world combat goes. If a war broke out between large counties, the kind of countries that could afford large amounts of tanks, then it's probable that all those tanks will be destroyed by missiles before they could do much of anything, because if you can afford the tanks you can afford the missiles. So basing large amounts of tanks anywhere is really a waste of money.[/QUOTE] The last time that happened in the 60s (heat rounds obsoleting any armor) people at the design bureaus just pumped out fast, agile, cheap designs with minimal armor and maximum firepower (a la Leopard I, Sheridan) with good logistic capability (fuel economy, weight, etc) to boot. Having a mobile big gun on the field able to accurately engage targets a kilometer or two away for way cheaper cost than air support is by no means completely obsolete.

Eh, it's not like this is indicating a change in warfare or anything, much less Americans leaving Germany all together. There's still airfields like the one in Ramstein which act as a transit route for operations in the Middle-East that have a significant presence. All this really says that these Cold War-era bases and divisions aren't particularly relevant any more. They were there as a first defense in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion (parallel to the Warsaw Pact deployments in East Germany which were there for the same intent against NATO), most of them clustered around the Fulda gap. But now that this isn't even a concern anymore, there's no reason to maintain such a presence, the resources can be better utilized elsewhere.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40246221]I guess the tank era is over, as far as first world combat goes. If a war broke out between large counties, the kind of countries that could afford large amounts of tanks, then it's probable that all those tanks will be destroyed by missiles before they could do much of anything, because if you can afford the tanks you can afford the missiles. So basing large amounts of tanks anywhere is really a waste of money.[/QUOTE] Not really, there is a large influx in stealth tech for tanks. They are making them lighter with quieter engines and thermal/optical camo. Just like with ships and basically anything now in days, stealth is the way to go.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40246463]I love the fact that they still use the 42 (or an updated variant of it, I don't know)[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG3[/url]

Heinrich, the Yanks are gone! Start up the tank factory, schnell! Seriously though Germany, you make the best tanks.

The problem with any kind of tank technology, stealth or not, is that those tanks have to be forward based first. So all your enemy has to do is missile attack(not even use planes) your tank base and they don't have to 'see' the tank to do that. For example, let's say for the sake of argument the US and China were going to fight it out in Asia with tanks. The US would drop missiles on any and all Chinese bases that might even potentially be hiding any kind of weapon of note. The Chinese would do the same to any forward base the US was using to stage our tanks. Sure, both sides would have anit-aircraft or anti-missile defenses, but guess what? Those will be attacked FIRST! By the time your dozens of tanks are hit, your air defenses won't help because they got toasted when hostilities broke out.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40244730]Evilskydiver must be bored as shit.[/QUOTE] Yup I miss my tank, they are planning on pulling out all of us "tanker" by end of 2014.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40246987]The problem with any kind of tank technology, stealth or not, is that those tanks have to be forward based first. So all your enemy has to do is missile attack(not even use planes) your tank base and they don't have to 'see' the tank to do that. For example, let's say for the sake of argument the US and China were going to fight it out in Asia with tanks. The US would drop missiles on any and all Chinese bases that might even potentially be hiding any kind of weapon of note. The Chinese would do the same to any forward base the US was using to stage our tanks. Sure, both sides would have anit-aircraft or anti-missile defenses, but guess what? Those will be attacked FIRST! By the time your dozens of tanks are hit, your air defenses won't help because they got toasted when hostilities broke out.[/QUOTE] This is almost as foolish as saying "The bomber will always get through" but apparently missiles are now infinite and omnipotent instead of bombers

[QUOTE=SKEEA;40245705]We don't have tanks in Iraq, we already have tanks in SK, and we have no tanks in Afghanistan due to their unsuitability for that type of combat. They are most likely going to go to one of the main posts, and stuck in a motor pool yard with a cover over it for a long, long time.[/QUOTE] Actually they still shoot gunnery in Bliss, Hood, Benning, Carson and fort Irwin. The tanks being sent back are split between Fort Hood and Bliss. They will still be using them just back in the US and there are still loads of tanks and tankers in Korea. If I could bring my partner with me I would have considered going to Korea.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40246463]I love the fact that they still use the 42 (or an updated variant of it, I don't know)[/QUOTE] its just an MG 42 chambered for 7.62 NATO rounds. Still best machine gun of all time

[QUOTE=viperfan7;40247798]its just an MG 42 chambered for 7.62 NATO rounds. Still best machine gun of all time[/QUOTE] I got to shoot one in the schützenschnur it's still a very fast and fun.

[QUOTE=EvilSkydiver;40247932]I got to shoot one in the schützenschnur it's still a very fast and fun.[/QUOTE] because you didn't have to clean it :v:

[QUOTE=EvilSkydiver;40247932]I got to shoot one in the schützenschnur it's still a very fast and fun.[/QUOTE] I'm jealous. Did you have any buddies in the Bundeswehr?

[QUOTE=scout1;40247686]This is almost as foolish as saying "The bomber will always get through" but apparently missiles are now infinite and omnipotent instead of bombers[/QUOTE] You need to read for context. I'm obviously not talking about big military(US) vs smaller military(ie Iraq). This is because in that kind of conflict, a large tank force isn't necessary. I'm talking about any kind of conflict between large military forces, the kind of fight where you might actually need dozens of tanks in the field. In that kind of fight your enemy will have bombers/missiles/artillery/helicopters, and most importantly counter weapons for the same. In a huge tank vs tank conflict, do you really think those tanks will make it to the front line in TODAY'S world? A world where no one can move one tank without the enemy's spy satellites seeing it? Before anyone fights that battle, they will have assembled the necessary forces to A)protect their own tanks and B)kill the other guy's tanks. That huge tank battle will actually be won and lost before the tanks fight, by one side wiping out the other's protective forces, then the tanks themselves. So the missiles don't have to be omnipotent. In fact, you could lose 99% of your missiles to anti-aircraft and still win, as long as the 1% that get through are enough to decimate your enemy's tank force.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;40247986]because you didn't have to clean it :v:[/QUOTE] LOL they have me as a M249 gunner now and on tanks I had to clean my M240, the coax 240, and the TC's .50 so... I know their pain. [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PaChIrA;40248017]I'm jealous. Did you have any buddies in the Bundeswehr?[/QUOTE] Yeah, they had a few of the Leo's over and we got to go inside. The German tankers carry UZI's I'm so jealous. XP

[QUOTE=EvilSkydiver;40247932]I got to shoot one in the schützenschnur it's still a very fast and fun.[/QUOTE] What was the setup, light or heavy bolt?

[QUOTE=EvilSkydiver;40248056]LOL they have me as a M249 gunner now and on tanks I had to clean my M240, the coax 240, and the TC's .50 so... I know their pain. [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] Yeah, they had a few of the Leo's over and we got to go inside. The German tankers carry UZI's I'm so jealous. XP[/QUOTE] UZIs? I thought they would use MP5, MP7 or MP9

[QUOTE=viperfan7;40248126]What was the setup, light or heavy bolt?[/QUOTE] I honestly did not know they handed us a 15 round belt and told us to hit the target. That was the hard part.

[QUOTE=EvilSkydiver;40248056]LOL they have me as a M249 gunner now and on tanks I had to clean my M240, the coax 240, and the TC's .50 so... I know their pain.[/QUOTE] I've heard that the MG3 is particularly bad :P

[QUOTE=JoonazL;40248136]UZIs? I thought they would use MP5, MP7 or MP9[/QUOTE] No, it's an UZI. But they do carry HK USP-9.

[QUOTE=EvilSkydiver;40248164]I honestly did not know they handed us a 15 round belt and told us to hit the target. That was the hard part.[/QUOTE] lawls, let me guess, managed to get like a tenth of a second of firing time

[QUOTE=viperfan7;40248198]lawls, let me guess, managed to get like a tenth of a second of firing time[/QUOTE] Yeah, that shit went quick. I still got gold. ;p

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40246221]I guess the tank era is over, as far as first world combat goes. If a war broke out between large counties, the kind of countries that could afford large amounts of tanks, then it's probable that all those tanks will be destroyed by missiles before they could do much of anything, because if you can afford the tanks you can afford the missiles. So basing large amounts of tanks anywhere is really a waste of money.[/QUOTE] tanks are just situational weapons. if you can establish air-superiority over relatively flat land(at least not mountains), tanks really shine in offensives. [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40248035] Before anyone fights that battle, they will have assembled the necessary forces to A)protect their own tanks and B)kill the other guy's tanks. That huge tank battle will actually be won and lost before the tanks fight, by one side wiping out the other's protective forces, then the tanks themselves.[/QUOTE] dude have you ever read sun tzu's art of war? "Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] battles are won far before they are ever fought.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40248035]You need to read for context. I'm obviously not talking about big military(US) vs smaller military(ie Iraq). This is because in that kind of conflict, a large tank force isn't necessary. I'm talking about any kind of conflict between large military forces, the kind of fight where you might actually need dozens of tanks in the field. In that kind of fight your enemy will have bombers/missiles/artillery/helicopters, and most importantly counter weapons for the same. In a huge tank vs tank conflict, do you really think those tanks will make it to the front line in TODAY'S world? A world where no one can move one tank without the enemy's spy satellites seeing it? Before anyone fights that battle, they will have assembled the necessary forces to A)protect their own tanks and B)kill the other guy's tanks. That huge tank battle will actually be won and lost before the tanks fight, by one side wiping out the other's protective forces, then the tanks themselves. So the missiles don't have to be omnipotent. In fact, you could lose 99% of your missiles to anti-aircraft and still win, as long as the 1% that get through are enough to decimate your enemy's tank force.[/QUOTE] Missiles cant hold ground.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;40245950]We don't have any tanks in Afghanistan anymore. There is no need for them there at all. The ones that the Marines brought out there in 08 are gone. Air power is simply the best support option available, and it trumps everything else. Also, an "old soviet bastard" would pose no threat to the ground guys, because there are always helicopters with hellfires flying around, not to mention the anti armor weapons that are carried around. It would not fit with the insurgent fighting style at all, and it would be a massive waste. So, there are no tanks in Afghanistan, due to them not being needed and the incredible amount of mountains in the country, not to mention that the current mission profile has no use for them.[/QUOTE] The UK has like.. two there or something. AFAIK they were used for convoy defence. I think they just sit around in bastion doing bugger all these days.

[QUOTE=LordLoss;40248682]Missiles cant hold ground.[/QUOTE] tanks can't either really. infantry are used to hold ground. tanks can sometimes support, and aircraft are needed in this day and age to hold ground, but it's generally the guy with the rifle that bears the burden of securing land.