Fighting compartment probably wont be breached, but that tank is a 100% m-kill

Also, does your dumb ass not understand "modernized"?

Modernizing a 40's tank design would give you a tall AF MBT, but the designs would most likely have thicker physical armor due to them being, y'know, layed out for armor rather than profile.

Load the MODERNIZED gun with some HEAT-FS packing tandem or triple charges and boom, MBT killer. Not to mention the larger amount of room available to the crew for comfort and ease of operation.

Ok but like, why even bother modernizing a long outdated design

Because it looks cool now shut up

@Reichtangle haha stupid nigger

Muh aesthetic

@Nic386 The only thing out of date is the height. And, to be honest, height is largely irrelevant when you can get spotted from kilometers out by literally anything because thermals exist. You can argue a lower profile makes a harder target, but again, you can hit an orange at 2km while going full-tilt across rough terrain, so that's a moot point too. The advantage is some old tanks had a shitload of space in them, and space is literally worth more than gold in a tank.

Well, there's the disadvantage of the basic armor-size problem. More surface area=more armor=more weight. At the same time, you have to look at layout, which determines where and how much armor you can fit on any given point. It's easier to scale armor thickness on older tanks, but they get heavy FAST. Modern tanks run in to weird issues because of bizarre geometries, but for the most part you can make the turrets THICC, but the front hull is either one big LFP (which also forces you to add thickness internally), or a squashed angle like a T-series. Good luck thickening that without fucking the layout.

You can see attempts to streamline the layout of MBTs in prototypes that put the driver in the turret, which... god that was terrible.

But you ended up with what was essentially a turret with tracks, and no appreciable hull to armor.

So what he's saying is that tanks are going to become super heavy sniper fortresses with 200mm rail guns and multiple point defence AA turrets while fighting in tandem with light and fast 6m mechs that can actually fit in urban environments unlike these new area denial platforms

Because that's basically a tanks entire role, denying a space where the enemy can't take it without investing a significant amount of resources on that area

Why not just build Marauder suits?

>tfw no power armor suit equipped with tactical nuke launchers where spacing of units is measured in kilometers

Because we only have one planet dumbass

>tfw nuclear testing wasn't harmless and the trillions of gamma, beta, alpha rays along with all the irradiated isotopes and material released into the atmosphere and ground has probably cause the modern spike in mental illness by contaminating all major water and food sources globally

You're not wrong, Inazuma. IMO tanks will go the route of the Bolo, massive moving fortresses bristling with guns and armor. IIRC in the Bolo series, a single early model Bolo was enough to completely dominate a continent, and the late model Bolos had enough firepower to single-handedly execute an entire planetary subjugation campaign AND secure low orbit from enemy spacecraft. The main gun was literally a fucking Cassaba Howitzer, they just called it a Hellbore, which I like.

Superheavies though, will be prime targets, like Battleships in the age of the Steel Fleet

It's the White Elephant problem all over again, just like we're experiencing with supercarriers

There's a point at which your force concentration gets so high that you can't risk the unit in combat

Because it's such a critical part of your effective military strength

For instance, a single supercarrier is worth like, 3-6 modern Escort CVs

You can lose several CVEs in combat and still retain force projection, but if you lose your supercarrier... you're fucked. Despite that, a supercarrier is overwhelmingly powerful. It's like a super unit in vidya, except you only ever get a limited lifetim supply of them, and if you run out, you never get more.

@RoflTank Am I to understand then that the US would be better served by 2-3 dozen LHD or poverty ramp carriers that we could afford to lose than the 13-15 Nimitz or Gerald R Ford class carriers we currently use?

A swarm of CVEs carrying 10-15 aircraft as opposed to one big motherfucker with 60+? Yeah, probably. Also, you can be in more places at once while taking less losses in terms of men and material.

5000 men and billions of dollars per supercarrier as opposed to a couple hundred men and maybe 8 digit unit cost

You know what I want to see? A supertanker converted to a CV. Those things are... my God. Massive doesn't do them justice.

What about the Brits using Container ships to launch harriers and helos in the Falklands?

>why not just gut a destroyer and make the entire top a takeoff/landing deck and carry like 2-3 fast attack aircraft but have a couple point defence guns and two main guns in the stern and bow

Micro carriers

Helicopter carriers my guy

Japan does that

>helicopters=jets

k

They're called helicopter carriers so China won't get in a fucking fit over it.

Shit, they've even thrown a temper tantrum before over the ROK getting THAADs.

Literally just meant to shoot down ICMBs and other major missile threats from the fucking DPRK.

k cuck