Death Gliders vs Tanks (M1 Abrams)

[titan_hq]

If it was an Abrams I would go with the Glider. Abrams have proved time and time again their armor just doesn't cut it. Even against conventional rockets, and IEDs.

If on the other hand, the tank was a Challenger, or a Merkava Mk.4 then the tank would win. Both have dedicated anti-aircraft guns, and their armor has proved to be nearly impenetrable against conventional weapons.

Also, in response to a comment made my someone, tanks may have metal hulls, but their armor is mainly Ceramics and Carbon nanotubes.

[Womble]

Actually, modern anti-tank missiles can punch through any tank's armor. Several Merkava MK IV have been damaged by Russian-made ATGMs in Lebanon during the 2006 war. The Abrams armor is no worse than that of other modern tanks, they've just seen more action than most modern tanks so they've been shot at more.

Also, the weakest parts of any tank's armor are top and bottom. You can destroy any modern tank with a couple of shots from the good old RPG-7 if you shoot it from the roof of a building aiming for the top of the turret.

thekillman- tanks can be protected from energy weapons the same way they are protected against RPGs and shaped charges.

[Laxian of Earth]

i agree (of course they can be protected...hell the goauld, now primitiv compared to the asgard stuff we have, had HANDHELD-ENERGY-SHIELDS, so who says we can't make a small shield protected, well armed and very movable (tracks powered by a electro engine fed by a Naquadah generator or even - as stated before - a AG field for it to hover) vehicle that can stand up to any number of gliders/darts and any of that (as far) seen small craft, is sadly misstaken.

to quote the new US-President: YES WE CAN!!!

greetings LAX
ps: yes i like obama (at least more then the other candidates, even those from the Pre-elections. but he still is a politician and has to prove his worth to me - even more as i am not american and i don't like how "they" treat the rest of the world)

[helio9]

If you have anti-grav tech, then the whole tank concept seems ridiculous to me. Why limit yourself to the ground? With antigrav, you could make an equally heavily armoured vehicle fly, while retaining the option of fighting on the ground. Intentionally cutting yourself off from the 3rd dimension seems stupid, given the option.

[thekillman]

agree.


a gatefighter is the best option. two PDL turrets on it, and it cuts up enemy forces just like that. a more..... helicopter like thing would work aswell. gatefighters assault the fighters, the gatecopters fly in and cut up the enemy forces on the ground

[Laxian of Earth]

i never said that the thing would not be able to fly! (i just said it would be build after what we today think of as a tank, so it would be better for ground fighting but still be able to fly)

greetings LAX

[Stewart5]

i never said that the thing would not be able to fly! (i just said it would be build after what we today think of as a tank, so it would be better for ground fighting but still be able to fly)

greetings LAX

You could easily have both a gate-fighter and tanks rumbling through. At the risk of repeating myself, you send something through to eliminate the enemies aircover (your gatefighter, thekillman) and tanks to help overwhelm the infantry. In real world combat, you don't send in armour unsupported if you know suspect enemy air cover, so why would the gateverse be any more stupid?

And Challenger II armour is proof against almost any man-portable ordinance. Its when you start talking about aircraft mounted missiles that the Charlie starts to worry.

[thekillman]

i STILL dont see the point of tanks. but yea, a gatefighter is a massive advantage in every way

[Stewart5]

i STILL dont see the point of tanks. but yea, a gatefighter is a massive advantage in every way

As anti-infantry support.

air cover is not as reliable in this way. And if ur fighters are dog-fighting their fighters, then u need something else to support the ground pounders

[thekillman]

gatecopters

[Malviris]

agree.


a gatefighter is the best option. two PDL turrets on it, and it cuts up enemy forces just like that. a more..... helicopter like thing would work aswell. gatefighters assault the fighters, the gatecopters fly in and cut up the enemy forces on the ground

Gatecopters would be freaking awesome

[Stewart5]

gatecopters

Aircraft in general can only provide limited infantry support(as do tanks, but more on that in a moment)

Aircover is a pernickty thing. It's gotta be done just right or you get blue-on-blue. It's not always available when you need it. And it can suffer to ground fire quite alot (see Black Hawk Down, We were Soldier Once and Young, etc etc) as they are lighter armoured. Also, they must often comtend with the oppositions Air. The only reason that's not so much of a threat, contemporarily, is because the West hasn't fought a similar military in a while.

Now, tanks provide heavy anti-armour/anti-personnel fire, and limited anti-air. They can privde cover for adavancing troops whilst breaking the enemy troops. They can be pressed into transporting troops, if necessary. They can engage on open or rough ground.
They can stay in the field longer than aircraft, and most importanlty, they can provide literal cover for ground pounders, as well as fire cover. (nive 7ft tall wall of metal to duck behind, AND the wall shoots back)

Now, you don't use tanks exclusively. They are part of combined arms. And u use APCs and IFVs to support them, infantry on the ground assaulting and gatefighters/copters taking out air support before engaging ground targets

[thekillman]

HAH. stargate has better armored aircraft. size is moot, as is shape. a cube could fly. besides, those Tac's the Tokra used could blow away tanks in no-time

[Womble]

A few more points.

Airborne vehicles can be pretty useless in certain environments- dense forest cover, for example- and weather conditions (fog, etc.). They could be much more reliable than aircraft on alien planets where the atmosphere is denser or gravity is higher.

Finally, tanks would be a great deal cheaper to build than various anti-gravity flying saucers. Which means you could field greater numbers of them for the same budget.
(This is a more important point than most people realize. During World war II, budget constraints led to both Axis and Allied countries producing large numbers of "tank destroyers"- self-propelled artillery vehicles specialized for anti-tank role- because they could be manufactured cheaper and faster than "proper" tanks. Germany's most produced armored vehicle during the war was a tank destroyer (StuG).

Before World war II, many people thought that bomber planes were the ultimate weapon that could alone win the war. It wasn't so.

[Stewart5]

HAH. stargate has better armored aircraft. size is moot, as is shape. a cube could fly. besides, those Tac's the Tokra used could blow away tanks in no-time

You are not listening. You Do not send tanks against air cover alone. You use them in conjunction with other elements! Tanks are never sent into a situation where they think aircraft may be involved too without some sort of support! Your beloved gatecopters/fighters would be sent to deal with the tac's and alkesh etc.

A few more points.

Airborne vehicles can be pretty useless in certain environments- dense forest cover, for example- and weather conditions (fog, etc.). They could be much more reliable than aircraft on alien planets where the atmosphere is denser or gravity is higher.

Finally, tanks would be a great deal cheaper to build than various anti-gravity flying saucers. Which means you could field greater numbers of them for the same budget.
(This is a more important point than most people realize. During World war II, budget constraints led to both Axis and Allied countries producing large numbers of "tank destroyers"- self-propelled artillery vehicles specialized for anti-tank role- because they could be manufactured cheaper and faster than "proper" tanks. Germany's most produced armored vehicle during the war was a tank destroyer (StuG).

Before World war II, many people thought that bomber planes were the ultimate weapon that could alone win the war. It wasn't so.

Good knowledge!