Are tanks not as tall in modern warfare as they were in World War II?

Yes, the tanks of World War II were very tall, because the technology was not very developed at that time, so it was more difficult to manufacture, and the tanks now are much lower than they were then, but they are more powerful.

Yes, it's smaller now, so it's more sensitive and less likely to hit, but now it's more elite and technological.

The current tanks are obviously much more powerful than the World War II tanks. Today's tanks, both in terms of power and armor, are much more powerful than before. And in terms of firepower, the current tanks are much more accurate.

There are certain differences in the design and use of tanks in World War I and World War II tanks. Here are some of the key differences:

1.Form and size: World War I tanks were relatively small and less mobile, often with only one main gun. In contrast, World War II tanks were larger, more complex, more heavily equipped, had more firepower, and were more mobile.

2.Armor: World War I-era tanks were just emerging and were not fully developed, and their armor was thin and could not effectively withstand enemy fire.

World War II tanks, on the other hand, have made a lot of progress in the application of new materials, the design of armor slopes, and technological advances, and their armor can effectively protect against enemy shells and bombs.

3.Firepower: World War I tanks had only one main gun, which often required multiple tanks to work together, making them relatively inefficient.

4.Mobility: World War I tanks were less mobile and often took a long time to reach their combat destination.

During World War II, the Tankey Kongke used a more powerful engine and a better steering system, which allowed it to move and steer quickly, giving it an advantage on the battlefield.

In general, the tanks of the First World War were still in the experimental and initial stage, while the tanks of the Second World War were developed in a more in-depth and comprehensive way, and became an important historical node in the development of modern tanks.

A tough iron warrior, a ruthless injury-resistant behemoth. <>

I want to roll my eyes at those who preach the uselessness of tanks, although there are anti-tank **, but tanks are still of great importance in terms of operations. Having seen the wars of the new century, such as the Kosovo and Afghanistan wars, people were amazed by the flexible tactical coordination and high-intensity combat capability of the Navy and Air Force, and everyone began to slowly change their thinking that air strikes were the turning point of victory or defeat, and thus began to question the combat capability of the army, and even came again and again - the so-called "tank uselessness" ...... appeared

But there is also an old saying: it is always the army that wins the battle. For wars such as conquering the territory and expanding the territory, can we expect the navy to land?

Or the Air Force dropping bombs? Blown into a mess? Only the army can rush into the corners and clear the enemy.

Think about it, in the Iraq war, it was slaughtered into salted fish by the US military in time, and in the end, didn't the United States still send its army all the way into Baghdad? Therefore, it is not that the army is not important, but that the combat effectiveness is stable and the finale debuts, and the position is still indestructible. As long as the war is still a war that human beings step on on land, and the form remains unchanged, then the tank will inevitably be useful, and its comprehensive effectiveness will also be among the best.

The birth of Wuzhi has actually promoted a lot of clamor for the uselessness of tanks, but to analyze a wave in detail, can the emergence of nuclear ** be said to be useless? Wu Zhi After all, no matter how good his performance is, he also flies with two wings, can he walk on the same two legs? At the end of the day, there is still a ...... reproductive isolationThis!

Not only can the tank be used as an attack**, it can always accompany the infantry in battle, and can be used as a cover and defense in times of crisis. Like in the game, there are warriors who output a wet nurse and a meat shield to resist damage. Then the tank undoubtedly plays the position of a thick flesh shield, directly eating all the damage on the battlefield.

Good guys, people suffer and suffer here, and in the end they are reprimanded, it's useless, you tell who listens to who is not wronged!

Tanks, of course, worked. Tanks are suitable for the advancement of mechanized troops, they travel at high speeds, they are suitable for fighting on the plains, and if they can control air supremacy, then tanks must be a nightmare for the enemy.

This one. Hm. It's hard to say.

It depends. But. Tanks have played an important role in concrete occupation.

Although modern aviation has become more and more powerful. But without the concrete capture of tanks, complete victory was impossible. The United States won in Iraq though.

But the follow-up work still makes it too much to do. It is because aviation equipment cannot be used to achieve a concrete occupation. Moreover, aviation equipment is expensive to use and susceptible to weather.

So there are still limitations. But if only.

Useful, the tank was used as heavy land equipment, and tanks that could travel in the sea were also introduced later, which was of great strategic significance.

Some people say that modern war tanks are useless and wrong, modern war tanks still have not lost their capabilities, modern war tanks are still infantry god of war, and they are indispensable for infantry combat in modern warfare.

Of course it works, but it's not as obvious as it used to be.

Tanks are useful in modern warfare. After all, there will still be land battles, and land tanks are still the best to use.

Some people say that tanks are useless, but tanks are useful in modern warfare, and if you can only borrow tanks in special circumstances, the role of tanks is highlighted.

Useful, much better than if you took a hoe.

Useful Even fists can be used, will this be useless.

The status of the aircraft is much higher.

What modern warfare requires first and foremost is air supremacy and sea supremacy.

With air supremacy, you can send fighter jets to escort you, and then touch the attack plane, torture and kill tanks, attack aircraft like A10, get tanks and open cans, not only A10, you have air supremacy, you can also send armed ***, the same is to use the tank as a target.

For example, there are many wars in the Middle East, the United States has absolute air supremacy, A10 attack aircraft hit Iraq's T72 tanks as if they wanted to torture and kill, the entire first Iraq war Iraq more than 1,000 tanks, more than 300 were destroyed by M1A1, and more than 700 were destroyed by A10 and Wuzhi.

The reason why the A10 can run rampant is that the U.S. military has air supremacy, and the U.S. powerful air force, and naval aviation, completely suppress it

War is much worse than war.

What about Ethiopia and Eritrea Su-27 and MiG-29, these two countries are at this level of war, and one or two high-end equipment cannot be used effectively.

And Russia was able to let the Tu-22 be shot down by Georgia, which had no air force at all, and also lost several Su-25s. Although it doesn't matter, anyway on the ground is an all-round advantage.

In contrast, Israel's survival in the 6-day war largely depended on the performance of the air force, and if the United States did not have an air force, of course, the ground operation would be much more difficult.

Since it is a modern war, large-scale armored group operations are basically a method of operation that is not considered (just look at the tragic example of the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet army). I think that the current tank is just a symbol of the army (personal opinion), the reason is simple, the current infantry heavy ** can deal with the main battle tank (like what pottery; But if there is air support, the infantry has to do something much simpler: hide in a corner, call for air support, then take a sip of water, wait a few minutes, and then you can hear a whistling sound and watch the enemy tanks turn into a pile of scrap metal in the brilliant fireworks

As long as logistical supplies can be ensured, the advantages of the air force are obvious: air supremacy, the ability to strike quickly and accurately, and the ability to strike long-range (mainly relying on strategic bombers), and modern fighters are all-rounders, and can perform ground, air, and ship missions. Agree with everyone upstairs, whether it is an asymmetric war, a local conflict, or a full-scale conflict, not only fighters, but also the status of the entire air force is extremely high, why is the United States so good?

Because his powerful naval and air force cooperation gives him the ability to strike globally, in addition to strategic nuclear weapons, only the naval and air force cooperation has this kind of power, therefore, I don't think there is a need for the army in the traditional sense, instead of the Marine Corps and the air force ground forces (mainly elite infantry), in my opinion, tanks or something are floating clouds, the air force is the highest! (The Air Force's accurate, fast, long-range strike and delivery capabilities are incomparable to tanks or something!) ）

are all important. All equipment has its own unique and irreplaceable role.

Yes, this is not something that can replace each other at all, how can you ask that?

If you ask if the fighter-bomber can replace the bomber, there is still a saying.

From the top to the bottom, perhaps only one war is needed. It can be said that the outbreak of World War II was caused by Germany, which at that time had a strong military force and left a deep mark on the history of this war.

What is powerful? Firepower, Protection, Maneuver? The strongest in terms of overall strength is the Tiger type, the cheapest and most practical one is the Soviet T 34, the others are rat type, elephants, Stalin, etc., which are small in number and are not representative.

Hello, glad to answer for you. The most powerful tanks in World War II are the following 3: 1. The German Tiger series tanks played a major role in the Battle of Berlin and the Battle of Kursk, and their power made the Allies fearful; 2. The American-made M26 Pershing tank, although its name is not as good as the former, it is indeed the fastest and most mobile tank in World War II; 3. The Soviet T34 tank, which not only has excellent mobility performance, but also has a great leap in firepower and defensive performance compared with other tanks, and has played an irreplaceable role in the contest with the German army.