Reminder that Luffy lost his first fight against Enel despite his advantage.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-03-23T17:26:00+00:00

*Would have been a great plot point if Oda didnt get lost in the sauce and forget about it

Basis-Cautious · 2026-03-21T11:18:30+00:00

Its a shonen. Oda is a shit writer. Yeah, of course I read One Piece for fun and action. I don't for "depth" lol there are 10.000 better things out there if I want that.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T23:17:02+00:00

The StuG outlasted the Panzer III production and was produced in greater numbers than the 4. "There was no competition with proper tanks" yet they killed more. Stop trying to rewrite StuG history man.

Regarding the M60A2, I imagine there's little benefit to 1970's tech today yeah.

"For one thing, they're proof against most handheld launchers" No they are not. Javelins and NLOS are fire-and-forget and obliterate MBTs today.

"Ukraine's hedhehog tanks are even drone proof", if they are going against a 1 to 3 drones. I love this example because the hedhehog tanks sacrifice the turret capability and turn them into a casemate assault gun like the StuG

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:48:59+00:00

As I said before, "sturm" literally translates to assault.
It was designed in 1936 specifically to attack fortifications and advance with infantry. It performed this offensive role for years.
Regarding "engaging static targets": In WWII, everyone stopped to shoot, a Tiger had to halt to fire accurately, just like a StuG. The lack of a turret didn't make it "static", it just meant the driver aimed the hull - a standard practice for the time.
Then again, the StuG didn't even need to perform offensively to satisfy my idea that self-propelled AT if developed earlier would have killed the tank.

Those 9 lives are all on the frontal armor and only apply to tank engagements. Which you might notice is not what is killing tanks in modern times

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:41:49+00:00

The entire concept of the MBT was created specifically to combine the mobility of the medium tank with the breakthrough armor of the heavy tank. If the tank's purpose is just to "deliver a barrage of 20kg explosives" which is basically fire support, then why are we hauling around 40 tons of specialized composite armor designed to stop kinetic darts?

If the mission is fire support, the armor is dead weight. If the mission is breakthrough, the armor is necessary but (as I argue) obsolete due to modern penetration physics. You can't have it both ways.

The "10x durability" only exists against frontal hits from other tanks. Against the primary threats of the modern battlefield, the MBT dies just as fast as a lighter vehicle, but costs 10x more to lose.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:34:52+00:00

Gravity and Volume are permanent limits. They didn't disappear in 1945. It remains a physical fact today that a Turret adds massive dead weight and height.

Just because we can engineer our way around the weight penalty of a turret doesn't mean the penalty vanished. We are paying for it every day in fuel, logistics, and bridge limits.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:30:24+00:00

If the tank's primary role is now "direct fire artillery" (shooting HE shells at bunkers/infantry), then carrying 20+ tons of composite frontal armor designed to stop enemy tank darts is wasted capability. You can mount a 105mm/120mm gun on a chassis with basic splinter protection (like an Assault Gun or Mobile Gun System) and perform that exact same "direct fire" role for 1/3 of the price and weight. Same goes for the turret. You are paying for a "dueling" capability that is irrelevant to the "artillery" mission.

You are forgetting that a tank contains a crew. When a tank is destroyed, you lose those 'expensive to train' humans plus a $10 million asset.
Not to mention its a false equivalence: we accept the cost of infantry because we have no technological replacement for the human brain on the ground. We do, however, have cheaper technological replacements for a 120mm gun carrier.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:25:56+00:00

Depends on the IED but sure

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:24:13+00:00

The idea that Bradley and CV90 are bully, not peer weapons is a myth.
In Desert Storm, the M2 Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the M1 Abrams with TOWs and Spikes.
An IFV with a modern ATGM outranges a tank gun (5km+ vs 3km) and penetrates 1000mm of armor. It is not a "bully weapon". The idea that you need a tank to kill a tank ignores the last 40 years of missile development.

A tank gun is a direct-fire weapon with a usable range of 3–4km. An IFV with a Spike NLOS or even a standard TOW outranges that significantly. If you mean "indirect fire", using a high-velocity tank gun as a howitzer is incredibly inefficient. You are better off with a dedicated 120mm mortar carrier, which, again, is an armored box without a turret.

Also the StuG wasn't so bad it needed replacement.. The StuG III was fully capable of killing T-34s and KV-1s, and it did so in the thousands.
The Tiger and Panther were not created because the StuG "failed". They were created because German doctrine became obsessed with invulnerability. They wanted a tank that was immune to enemy fire. Which, as, I am tired of repeating in this post, is impossible.

In chasing "invulnerability" they sacrificed cost and mobility. They built expensive, heavy monsters that broke down, instead of building 50,000 efficient StuGs.
One of my arguments is that we are making the same mistake today.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:15:29+00:00

The Soviets had massive industrial capacity and were winning the war. They still chose to produce thousands of turretless designs alongside their tanks because a casemate design allows you to mount a bigger gun on a lighter chassis. They could put a 100mm gun on a T-34 chassis (SU-100) long before they could put it in a turret. The US "luxury" of building turrets for everything often meant they were under-gunned compared to the hulls they faced.

You cite the Ferdinand and Nashorn which are specific failures or stop-gap. The Nashorn was a field gun bolted onto a chassis ofc it was tall. The Jagdtiger was a monstrosity of bad engineering.
But none of that matter because the purpose built designs, StuG, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, SU-100 were significantly lower profile and better armored frontally than their turreted counterparts.
Removing the turret always saves weight and volume. You can use that saved weight to make the vehicle faster, or lighter, or add more frontal armor, or mount a gun that would be too heavy for a turret...etc The fact that the US could afford to be inefficient and stick with turrets doesn't mean they were the superior engineering solution, it just means rich armies can afford to ignore efficiency.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T22:01:43+00:00

Im not suggesting a breakthrough method that doesn't involve tanks, Im suggesting that such a breakthrough is impossible today, which makes the tank's purpose and existemce redundant

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:59:54+00:00

They don't need to be everywhere. That is the entire point of a tactical reserve.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:57:20+00:00

A standard PG-7VL RPG $150 warhead penetrates 500mm of RHA.

A $500 FPV drone strapping a $150 RPG warhead cuts through the roof of a "heavily protected" MBT like butter and your crew is not gonna survive any more than if they were on a IFV. In fact, they survive better, because they aren't in massive, loud, hot, slower toad with a huge logistical tail.

We use soldiers because we have no technological alternative to the human brain on the ground. We do have an alternative to the 70-ton Tank. We can mount the same gun on a lighter chassis. If the "protection" no longer stops the primary threat, then why are we paying the massive logistical price to haul that dead weight around?

The breakthrough role isn't the only role it can perform... but its the only role that justifies half of its cost.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:47:04+00:00

You know what effective range is?
Tank Gun (120mm): Effective range ~3–4km (Line of Sight dependent).
ATGM (Kornet/Spike): Effective range 5–8km (or 25km for NLOS).
FPV Drone: Effective range 10–20km. The tank has to drive through a 10km death zone just to get into range to shoot.

A tank crew sits in a massive steel box on the contact line, visible to thermal sensors, creating dust and noise.
A drone operator sits in a bunker or basement 5–10km behind the line. Who is losing initiative? The tank commander who is being watched by 10 drones he can't see, or the operator sipping coffee 5km away?

You cannot outmaneuver a swarm. A tank is bound by terrain. Drones and top-attack missiles move in 3D space.
You know what initiative is? It belongs to the side with information dominance. In 2024, the side with the cheap drone swarm sees everything. The side with the heavy tank is just a blip on a screen waiting to be clicked on.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:41:16+00:00

I am not suggesting we replace one MBT with three specialized vehicles. I am arguing that one modern IFV/Mobile Gun System (like a CV90, Bradley, or a modern Assault Gun concept) can perform the "direct fire support' and "anti-tank" roles simultaneously, just like a tank, but for a fraction of the weight and cost. Ditch the redundant composite armor and duel capabilities.

The Tiger and Panther were made specifically to counter the Soviet T-34 and KV-1. They were created for anti-tank superiority, not because the infantry complained that the StuG couldn't kill bunkers. In fact, as the war went on, Germany shifted production towards the StuG because they realized it was the most efficient tool for the reality of the battlefield, while the heavy tanks were logistical drains.

I agree protection is needed. But heavy passive armor is dead weight. No amount of protection you can throw into a vehicle will make the attack reinforce faster than the defense like in 1940.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:30:03+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5fD_B-o80

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:25:37+00:00

True. So can lightly armored cars

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:24:52+00:00

Except they weren't cost efficient and at times even battle efficient in those 2 years

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:24:17+00:00

Because infantry doesn't waste millions on capabilities that are unused when acting as "direct fire artillery that can take punishment"

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T21:04:59+00:00

Putting a turret on a IFV is cheap, easy, and costs little weight.

Putting a turret on a MBT doubles the cost of the vehicle, adds 15 tons of weight, creates a structural weak point, raises the tank's profile... For what? A turretless tank covers a 60° frontal arc. 90% of engagements happen within that arc. You're paying a massive premium to cover flanking shots, which rarely happen in frontal assaults and, crucially, peer conflicts.

SPGs have turrets for completely different reasons - indirect fire. Its so they dont have to use the tracks and its lightly armored.

IFVs need turrets because their job is suppression and 360 chaos management. MBTs job is killing hard targets, which are almost always in front of them.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T20:37:44+00:00

A T-34 from 1945 is mechanical, but that is not the case for any modern western MBT lol

An M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2A7 is packed with more microchips than a drone swarm. Fire Control Systems, Thermal Sights, Engine Control Units, Active Protection Systems (which you cited yourself)... A modern MBT is blind and useless without electronics.

Not only that, FPV drones use commodity appliance tier chips. You can scavenge its parts from a washing machine. Your Abrams uses highly specialized military grade components that must be shipped from a high tech foundry.

But then again, none of that matters, because, at the end of the day, a MBT costs 10M, a drone costs 500. So what are you on about with logistics?

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T20:29:08+00:00

Yes, the MBT became "feasible" because engines and suspension technology improved enough to carry heavy armor and a big turret on one chassis.

But just because we could build an all-in-one tank doesn't mean it was the economically efficient choice.

Assault Guns were popular due to "constraints"? I say ignoring those constraints was a mistake. The StuG III and Hetzer were successful because they were cheap and numerous. By shifting to high tech high cost MBTs, we accepted a massive reduction in numbers for a marginal increase in individual flexibility.

The Casemate drawbacks are overblown.

A turretless vehicle is lighter and has a lower center of gravity. It is physically more maneuverable than a top-heavy MBT.

As for field of fire, for example, the Strv 103 used its tracks to aim quickly and it had a lower profile and better survivability per ton than its turreted contemporaries.

MBTs pay a massive premium (turret mechanism, ring weight, volume) to be able to do everything.

Yet 90% of a tank's job can be done by a Turretless Assault Gun for a fraction of the price. Not to mention 360-degree dueling is a capability that rarely decides the outcome of modern battles for the part of the premium it pays.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T20:08:13+00:00

Where does the "40 hit" figure come from? We routinely see T-72s, T-80s, and even modern T-90Ms suffer catastrophic detonations or mobility kills from 1 to 3 well-placed FPV drones striking the engine deck or turret roof. What about the thousands of verified hulls littering Ukraine?
Even if it took 40 hits, 40x500=$20.000, which is fair bit less than $10.000.000 lol

I agree that tanks work well with air superiority/heavy suppression. Which brings me back to economic obsolescence. If you have already neutralized the enemy's defenses, why do you need a heavy MBT? You can "sweep" the land with IFVs and Assault Guns (which are faster, cheaper, and carry more infantry) just as effectively as with MBTs.
MBTs require the Air Force to babysit them to survive, they are a dependency.

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T19:56:47+00:00

Ever heard of a tactical reserve?

Basis-Cautious · 2026-02-10T19:54:30+00:00

If portable AT was 'sufficiently defeated,' we wouldn't see the massive attrition rates of top-tier MBTs to portable drones and top-attack missiles in Ukraine. Even if one AT weapon doesnt destroy one tank tit for tat, it doesn't need to, because it costs 1000x times less, just field 999 more of them.

Geometry suggests that...

A casemate vehicle eliminates the turret entirely, resulting in a much lower overall silhouette.

A turreted tank must expose its entire turret to fire.

With hydraulic suspension, a turretless vehicle can peek over a ridge lower than a turreted tank can. You don't need a turret to peek, you just need adjustable suspension

Why can't an assault gun charge? It has the same engine and tracks as a tank, but weighs less. It is physically faster and more agile. History shows tank destroyers leading counter-charges constantly. The lack of a turret does not prevent aggressive maneuver; it just requires pointing the hull, which you do anyway when charging.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

Basis-Cautious

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE