Support NeoGAF

[fireflame]

I remember reading gaffers stating that USA did not need tanks because it was wasted money, so i was wondering if there were weapons that were currently a source of waste.

I have seen specialists state that planes alone can't do everything and that ground support can be vital even in modern battles. So even though the risk of a big war nowdays is low, i feel Tanks are not this useless.Submarines could be needed to impact the trades of an enemy nation, or prevent big ships from getting too close.

So are there really weapons that governments are currently buying for no reason?

 

[Dali]

Japan keeps building Gundams, when, if we're being honest, a bipedal tank has more weaknesses than advantages.

 

[veryslowhand]

Do they still make bazookas?

 

[MudoSkills]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

 

[jayhawker]

Trojan horse is a bit obvious these days

 

[lightskintwin]

Throwing rocks.

 

[Meadows]

I think attack helicopters are going to eventually be useless when we can get bigger drones out there with more payload.

What advantage is there to having a guy sat in an Apache over doing it via a drone? Using a drone also negates the risk of there being a potential POW or propaganda win for the enemy.

Obviously transport helicopters still have their uses.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Tanks are still used plenty. It's just that a lot of recent wars the west has been involved with tend to focus on urban and guerilla fighting. They were used pretty extensively in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and in the Battle of Fallujah. Russia used lots of Russian Tank-Shaped Rebels in Ukraine.

 

[Podge293]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

More for crowd control no? Like a stationary car can only get mobile so quick. A horse can kick you in the face A lot faster

Also height advantage

 

[Morat]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

They are useful in for crowd control, especially in built up areas.

 

[BigDes]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

Mounted police are incredibly intimidating in a way that a policeman in a car isn't.

Its why they are used for crowd control

 

[ponpo]

Japan keeps building Gundams, when, if we're being honest, a bipedal tank has more weaknesses than advantages.

A gundam can walk / jump over a crossing that is larger than the tank could cross.

Checkmate.

 

[choodi]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

Police large crowds of people

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I think attack helicopters are going to eventually be useless when we can get bigger drones out there with more payload.

What advantage is there to having a guy sat in an Apache over doing it via a drone? Using a drone also negates the risk of there being a potential POW or propaganda win for the enemy.

Obviously transport helicopters still have their uses.

It's still an attack helicopter for all intents and purposes, just unmanned.

 

[zookeep]

The bayonet – you still get the odd story of some leading a charge, but it's fairly redundant in modern warfare.
Although I doubt they cost all that much, and just using it as a Knife would still be a thing.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I think attack helicopters are going to eventually be useless when we can get bigger drones out there with more payload.

What advantage is there to having a guy sat in an Apache over doing it via a drone? Using a drone also negates the risk of there being a potential POW or propaganda win for the enemy.

Obviously transport helicopters still have their uses.

Problem with Drones is they hold only a small payload of firepower. They can often make a single strike and that's it. Attack choppers can take out entire convoys as well as provide fire support for extended periods of time for troops. Attack choppers also typically carry a variety of firepower for different situations, as drones usually only have one type of munition. How viable a heavy large scale drone could be? That's difficult to say really.

Tanks are still used plenty. It's just that a lot of recent wars the west has been involved with tend to focus on urban and guerilla fighting. They were used pretty extensively in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and in the Battle of Fallujah. Russia used lots of Russian Tank-Shaped Rebels in Ukraine.

Tanks are useful, the problem the US has is that we have too many tanks and keep making em. Many of these tanks just ship to armories around the US and never see use. We have stockpiles of unused tanks which end up just getting sold off cheap later on, while we keep making the same tank over and over. We can stop all tank production and we will still have enough for many years to come.

We are selling tanks off to other countries when they get older, just to go and pay for and make the same exact tank to replace the one we sold off for less? It's all stupid to keep people from losing jobs and keeping the military industrial complex going.

Now one reason they do this also is because if they did close the plans down that produce the tanks, if we need tanks in the future, we would need to build all new plants and hire/train all new staff to create these new tanks. Really this isn't a problem that could be overcome, but lot of folks in the military are afraid to close down their manufacturing chains

 

[Krakatoa]

Tanks.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Well, the thing with the US and tanks currently, IIRC, isn't that the tank is useless as a weapon of modern warfare. Rather it's that the US is continually buying tanks that are redundant when it has thousands just already sitting there waiting to be used. The Daily Show dug into this a wild back - as in, when Jon Stewart was still hosting, so may be out of date - and it was basically the case that Senators for States that have tank manufacturing refuse to let the military not order and buy those tanks, as it would otherwise kill the jobs of the manufacturers.

As an actual answer to the topic question, the cannon. Strictly speaking you could still use one, but it's been thoroughly superseded by modern artillery and aerial capabilities. The ability to be able to aim and effectively hit a target at more than three miles away - whether because of sheer range or not having to deal with the horizon - is a plus.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

The bayonet – you still get the odd story of some leading a charge, but it's fairly redundant in modern warfare.

This is a good answer.

Bayonets were hugely impactful centuries ago, removing the need for pike formations. Now they're mostly useless.

 

[fanboi]

The bayonet – you still get the odd story of some leading a charge, but it’s fairly redundant in modern warfare.

In the Falklands they resorted to use the bayonet when they took a mountain overlook the capital city.

 

[MC Safety]

The day of the battleship is over.

Navies now use smaller ships to act as screens for carriers. The carriers do the heavy lifting.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

They can get to and through places a vehicle couldn't. Like over a fence without smashing it. Also let you do other stuff while riding on it. like hold your spear and shield.

 

[Oriel]

Tanks.

Nah, tanks still have an important role to play in the modern era, particularily in peacekeeping operations in hostile zones like Afghanistan. What is getting increasingly obsolete is the aircraft carrier which could be taken out with relative ease by anti-ship missiles such as the Chinese DF-21. Carriers are great for launching airstrikes against enemies without air forces, useless against actual modern militaries.

 

[Imperfected]

Things that are currently pretty useless:

Basically every form of mine (including the still somewhat actively used claymore anti-personnel mines). The political will to use these and deal with the consequences of using them simply is not there. They are no longer a significant strategic consideration in an anti-tank role, and basically only of interests to insurgent forces who of course also seem to be the ones to stumble across the stockpiles of them non-insurgent forces keep around for not particularly good reasons.

Anti-materiel rifles, despite being super rad, have honestly entered a sort of twilight zone where their portability and reliability is not significantly greater than modern artillery, and we can probably go ahead and phase them out. As above, they actually tend to be significantly more attractive to insurgents than modern military forces, having been replaced in virtually every role they once served.

Tactical nuclear weapons are practically useless. Politically and morally no one actually recognizes any meaningful difference between using a tactical and strategic nuclear weapon, and conventional bombs and fuel-air explosives have mostly consumed their functional niche. There's basically no call for using these things outside of all-out nuclear war (because no one's going to tolerate #CasualNukes), and if you're going to set the world on fire you might as well do the job right.

I'm honestly consistently amazed at the non-obsolescence of some standard NATO rounds and weapon systems, particularly the 5.56 ball and standard 9mm pistol cartridges. They should be at the point where their penetration against body armor is insufficient to task, but since we keep getting into dust-ups with people who can't afford ballistic-rated vests, they continue to be surprisingly useful.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Nah, tanks still have an important role to play in the modern era, particularily in peacekeeping operations in hostile zones like Afghanistan. What is getting increasingly obsolete is the aircraft carrier which could be taken out with relative ease by anti-ship missiles such as the Chinese DF-21. Carriers are great for launching airstrikes against enemies without air forces, useless against actual modern militaries.

Carriers are still essential for "invading" other countries. In a conventional war, they don't have much use anymore, but for a super power like the US, it's essential for asserting it's influence and delivering strikes to other countries.

 

[Meadows]

Carriers are absolutely vital in modern geopolitics as well as for military uses. Nothing says get in line like having 2 or 3 aircraft carriers off your coast.

 

[MudoSkills]

I think we can get rid of the horses and just have bigger, more intimidating policemen.

 

[NekoFever]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

Visibility, both so they can see and be seen.

They're also good for crowd control because getting rowdy around a horse is a really stupid idea. A motorcycle is easy to push over. People can block police cars and vans because the driver will (probably) stop.

Also good luck getting a car over a small fence or between bollards.

 

[Oriel]

The day of the battleship is over.

Navies now use smaller ships to act as screens for carriers. The carriers do the heavy lifting.

The Battleship hasn't been relevant since 1945 when US air dominance massacred the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamoto capital ship.

Carriers are still essential for "invading" other countries. In a conventional war, they don't have much use anymore, but for a super power like the US, it's essential for asserting it's influence and delivering strikes to other countries.

Yeah, no. You're thinking of amphibious assault ships that are used by Marines to mount shore landings. The Nimitz and Ford class carriers don't conduct amphibious assaults.

Also the Iraq invasion was undertake through a massive conventional ground force staging from Kuwait. Naval landings represented a small part of the invasion force.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Japan keeps building Gundams, when, if we're being honest, a bipedal tank has more weaknesses than advantages.

can always hand-wave it away with the minovsky particles excuse

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Carriers are still essential for "invading" other countries. In a conventional war, they don't have much use anymore, but for a super power like the US, it's essential for asserting it's influence and delivering strikes to other countries.

The US admittedly has the somewhat particular situation where the sheer number of carriers it has makes it feasible for them to launch what's effectively most other nation's 'full' military force just about anywhere on the planet on short notice. They can have air power, naval might, and a small land force at the target in the fraction of the time it would take most other countries.

Edit: Which admittedly won't win a war by itself by any stretch, and for the most part hasn't been tested given most actual sovereign nations aren't dumb enough to pick a fight with the US.

 

[zookeep]

This is a good answer.

Bayonets were hugely impactful centuries ago, removing the need for pike formations. Now they're mostly useless.

Also most modern weapons, in The British Army at least, are not capable of fixing one either due to under slung weapons or simply because they don't fit the type of blade used.

In the Falklands they resorted to use the bayonet when they took a mountain overlook the capital city.

I think that was the last mass British charge although one Solider did a charge single handed in Afghanistan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...net-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html

 

[kmfdmpig]

Nah, tanks still have an important role to play in the modern era, particularily in peacekeeping operations in hostile zones like Afghanistan. What is getting increasingly obsolete is the aircraft carrier which could be taken out with relative ease by anti-ship missiles such as the Chinese DF-21. Carriers are great for launching airstrikes against enemies without air forces, useless against actual modern militaries.

It's a threat against carriers, but it certainly does not make them obsolete. Also, unless the US and China engage in all out war I would think that they'd be hesitant to sink a carrier as that would certainly lead to a significant escalation.

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/killing-chinas-carrier-killer/
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-answer-carrier-killer-missile-2016-7
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...tary-not-panic-mode-over-chinas-carrier-16651

 

[MsKrisp]

As long as we're still waging war in the middle east, tanks are useless. They're too large and heavy and can't get dropped in with a helicopter so vehicles like MRAPs are preferable. I might be remembering this wrong, but the uselessness of tanks to the military right now is why a lot of local police departments were able to snatch up tanks at low low prices to terrorize people at home with.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

As long as we're still waging war in the middle east, tanks are useless. They're too large and heavy and can't get dropped in with a helicopter so vehicles like MRAPs are preferable. I might be remembering this wrong, but the uselessness of tanks to the military right now is why a lot of local police departments were able to snatch up tanks at low low prices to terrorize people at home with.

Those aren't really 'tanks', but armoured cars and the like. In which case it's military surplus, which is affected by the same issue of 'politicians have made it law for us to buy it so as not to kill jobs', but with the added issue that the military tries to get some money back by selling said surplus to police forces.

 

[Imperfected]

As long as we're still waging war in the middle east, tanks are useless. They're too large and heavy and can't get dropped in with a helicopter so vehicles like MRAPs are preferable. I might be remembering this wrong, but the uselessness of tanks to the military right now is why a lot of local police departments were able to snatch up tanks at low low prices to terrorize people at home with.

It's more over-production of tanks. There's some dick-bag Senator from Iowa or something (I can't remember the actual state off the top of my head) who fusses and whines until they get huge military contracts to produce more tanks, even though the military has been telling them for at least half a decade to stop making fucking tanks.

As a result we've armed half the world with tanks.

 

[Aurongel]

Do revolvers fit into this discussion at all? Their load method and propensity to misfire way more often than self-loaded weapons makes them sound obsolete.

 

[Oriel]

It's a threat against carriers, but it certainly does not make them obsolete. Also, unless the US and China engage in all out war I would think that they'd be hesitant to sink a carrier as that would certainly lead to a significant escalation.

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/killing-chinas-carrier-killer/
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-answer-carrier-killer-missile-2016-7
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...tary-not-panic-mode-over-chinas-carrier-16651

The threat of Chinese area denial is causing such panic within the ranks of the US Navy that they've been pushing hard electronic warfare as a viable military tactic in securing the air/sea battlespace. Many neo-cons (especially the PNAC) were hostile towards more supercarriers and pushed hard for the establishment of more land bases in the Asia-Pacific, in particular Taiwan where the US has no presence. Hard to sink an island.

As long as we're still waging war in the middle east, tanks are useless. They're too large and heavy and can't get dropped in with a helicopter so vehicles like MRAPs are preferable. I might be remembering this wrong, but the uselessness of tanks to the military right now is why a lot of local police departments were able to snatch up tanks at low low prices to terrorize people at home with.

Do you know what a tank actually is? Name one police dept that has deployed an Abrams on the streets in a policing role. Armoured personnel carriers are not tanks.

 

[13ruce]

Japan keeps building Gundams, when, if we're being honest, a bipedal tank has more weaknesses than advantages.

If we humans
ever can create ones like from Metal Gear Solid they sure will be usefull...

Altho one man was able to take em down in those games lol. But i think a fully realised walkin/flyin mech can be pretty usefull but we won't see one in our lifetime tho. And it would be fucking expensive to even just build a very usefull single one.

 

[Random17]

I'm willing to say carriers are outdated for large scale conflicts, they are easy targets for missiles and subs, and war games have shown this weakness again and again.

 

[Heavy Iron Industries]

i hope caltrops never become useless.

 

[| Praxis |]

Mounted police are incredibly intimidating in a way that a policeman in a car isn't.

Its why they are used for crowd control

This.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Yeah, no. You're thinking of amphibious assault ships that are used by Marines to mount shore landings. The Nimitz and Ford class carriers don't conduct amphibious assaults.

Also the Iraq invasion was undertake through a massive conventional ground force staging from Kuwait. Naval landings represented a small part of the invasion force.

Where are you going to launch your aircraft from when your country is on the other side of the world? Rely on access to airports nearby? That's not really a smart plan.

 

[bionic77]

Satellites made spy planes obsolete.

That and old school destroyers with giant ass guns are the two that I can think of.

 

[redcrayon]

Not to do with warfare, but I find it funny that we still have mounted police.

What exactly is a police horse going to do that a car, van or motorbike isn't?

It's not for pursuit. Four officers on bikes are asking to get dragged off by a crowd and can be cut off fairly easily. Four officers on horses offer the wonderful opportunity to have a huge bloody animal step on you if you don't get out of the way, plus it's harder to drag an officer off a horse when they can act more effectively with the huge height advantage, the intimidation factor and the horse acting to defend itself. If they want to disengage, they can turn around in a relatively small urban space and move quickly, people aren't going to be able to stop them from leaving as being behind a horse isn't very smart. Even if people are used to confronting officers in uniform, most people aren't that used to confronting cavalry in the 21st century.

 

[Unit 33]

We need to cut back on those obsolete Triremes.

Satellites made spy planes obsolete.

You know, I was on the train with a really talkative RAF guy, and he said that there's a contingent of folks who go up in planes and draw what they can see (presumably enemy bases etc).

I know this was a practice in previous wars, but he said that they still make use of aerial drawings as they can't be 'hacked'.

I'm not sure if it's true.

 

[Imperfected]

We need to cut back on those obsolete Triremes.

Listen, I'm not teching up to Navigation on a Pangaea. We'll just skip straight to Destroyers later.

 

[Oriel]

If we humans
ever can create ones like from Metal Gear Solid they sure will be usefull...

Altho one man was able to take em down in those games lol. But i think a fully realised walkin/flyin mech can be pretty usefull but we won't see one in our lifetime tho. And it would be fucking expensive to even just build a very usefull single one.

Bipedal walking tanks will never become a feasible option in a military role due to their high centre of gravity and sheer complexity. A BVR missile would take one out with ease.

The makers of Gundam understood this perfectly, hence why they had to invent some whole new branch of physics (Minovsky Particles) in order to justify their existence. Modern warfare rejects the notion of a killer app in the battlespace. Instead you have a whole host of weapons platforms (tanks, APC's, assault helis, naval vessels, satellites and ground troops) all working in unison as part of a single, cohesive war fighting machine linked through a military communications network (the network-centric force).

 

[Oriel]

Where are you going to launch your aircraft from when your country is on the other side of the world? Rely on access to airports nearby? That's not really a smart plan.

Why do you think the US and other major NATO countries have military bases all over the globe? Airstrikes against Serb forces in the 90's were undertaken from NATO bases in the UK and Germany.

 

[Rushersauce]

Japan keeps building Gundams, when, if we're being honest, a bipedal tank has more weaknesses than advantages.

That's why the GDI stopped with the production of walkers after the second Tiberium war.