Who's making tanks in this day and age?

USA. Germany. France. China. Russia. Japan. Few more countries, also.

Greece (Leopard 2), South Korea, Japan, China.
Probably that's all.
>inb4 M10
no

UK is tooling up to make Rheinmetall guns for their next generation.

>>63892699 (OP)
the US is still working through their backlog of 4000 M1A2s to upgrade to M1A2 SEP3 standard and they are working on the M1A3
china is producing the type 99, intended to eventually totally replace the type 88, and are up to the type 99A
russia is trying their best to get all their T-72s and T-90s up to T-90M standard, but the lack of any new hulls means production is bottlenecked by the amount of existing hulls (the current war is eating them all up)
the germans are still producing leopard 2s while also developing the leopard 3 as a temporary solution until their joint project with france can be finished

>>63892699 (OP)

>>63892743
but why? shouldnt they all be working on a prototype that can successfully withstand fpv drone attacks first? there is also the mine problem, that is still unsolved.

>>63893693
>develop soft and hard kill systems
>bolt it on top of the turret
>tank is no drone proved

>>63893699
there is no such system in existence and i think its pretty hard to develop. fpv drones can fly at cat height and approach behind cover. pretty hard to defend yourself from such a machine. you would need a kill system that engages every bird, cat, dog sized object in the vicinity and probaly branches, bushes and road signs as well. it would be impossible to operate such a tank together with infantry.

and then you still wouldnt have solved the mine problem.

>>63893733
>you would need a kill system that engages every bird, cat, dog sized object in the vicinity and probaly branches, bushes and road signs as well.
>cats and dogs
easily ignorable because they are on the ground and do not fly

>birds
generally do not fly straight towards tanks and lack any metal

>branches and stop signs
stand perfectly still and would not register as a drone unless you were driving at high speed towards one

>branches
only a concern in a forest and even then, a stick is a fraction of the size of a drone and falls straight down

>>63893733
how about you jump of a bridge and solve your stupidity problem?

>>63893693
Just because some tanks got blown up in a war don't mean you stop making tanks dumby

>>63893774
some? more like thousands and with an atrocious kill to death ratio. the whole mbt tank doctrine doesnt work anymore.

>>63893870
>the tank is dead (1917)
>this time the tank is dead (1936)
>okay this time the tank is dead (1939)
>no, this time I mean it, the tank is dead (1945)
>the tank is really dead now, I swear (1950)
>please just this last time, I swear the tank is dead (1963)
>...
>the whole mbt tank doctrine doesnt work anymore (2025)

>>63892699 (OP)
Are those IS-2s? or T-34-85s?
My tank autism ceases to exist on vehicles made prior to 1970

>>63893870
right, and basically neither side has aircraft attacking ground vehicles, you know, like modern war among non-subhumans would have.
Tanks are great if you can suppress the other side with aircraft and artillery so heavily that they wouldn't even bother using them.
Russia has anti-drone technology but not at the scale of being able to mount something on an actual tank. It's more like a couple hundred dudes wandering around forests trying to jam them.
Again, this won't be a problem for a military backed by the wildly overtaxed american public.

>>63893944
>wildly overtaxed american public
>Americans actually pay less income tax, less sales tax, and earn more than Europeans
anyway

>neither side has aircraft attacking ground vehicles, you know, like modern war among non-subhumans would have
this

>>63893944
>Tanks are great if you can suppress the other side with aircraft and artillery so heavily that they wouldn't even bother using them.
that sentence makes no sense. i have no idea what you are even trying to say.

>>63893944
>neither side has aircraft attacking ground vehicles
that would just make tanks even more obsolete. mbts are pretty helpless against apaches and frogfoots.

>>63893906
MBT doctrine is way more specific than tanks as a general concept

Sigh, here we go again.

>>63893906
>the tank is dead (wrong)
>...the consequences of computers ensue...
>the tank is dead (right)

More like this. "Death" doesn't mean instantly worthless. Horses were used in the world wars. Knives were used in Ukraine. It means falling down through the levels of strategic-operational-tactical-personal scale. Tanks used to be the ultimate conventional weapon in 1940s. Now they are a niche support tool.

>>63894036
>MBT doctrine
no such thing

>Tanks used to be the ultimate conventional weapon in 1940s
try 1930s
by 1940 it was tactical airpower; at the end of WW2 the Allies sat down, talked about it, and concluded that air superiority was the most decisive element of all WW2 offensives; and so this remains NATO doctrine to this day

>>63894060
Airpower wasn't enough. It took tactical nukes to counter the tank rush strat pre-microchip which led to the early anti-nuke movements (since german small towns were at just the right radius you couldn't use tac nukes without hitting them anyway). The 1950s and 1960s joke went "an american and a russian general are sitting in paris after ww3 and one says: so who won the air war?"

Air superiority as we know it is a post-microchip affair.

>>63893738
you're being overly simplistic in your thinking but you've got me onto a good question which is
>what sensors and what kind of programming would you need to have on a tank to be able to detect and distinguish an FPV drone from other objects in its surroundings
maybe something to do with the noise/movement of the rotors?

>>63894066
>The 1950s and 1960s joke went "an american and a russian general are sitting in paris after ww3 and one says: so who won the air war?"
we only have Tom Clancy's word for that
and I submit that he was writing fiction based on the 70s equivalent of Wikipedia, not actually sitting down with NATO generals, so I know who I'll take between the two

>Airpower wasn't enough. It took tactical nukes to counter the tank rush strat
no; pre-microchip it was fucktons of missiles; pre-missiles it was fucktons of various HEAT weapons (the recoilless rifle ruled during that brief period, thus giving us the likes of the RPG, Carl Gustav, the Wombat, the Ontos and its chibi Japanese knockoff)
which merely continues a WW2 trend that began with the ~7.92mm Antitank Rifle and ended with the M3 90mm

nukes sort of developed in parallel, arguably

>>63894050
>Now they are a niche support tool.
no they they arent, the armored brigade revolves entirely around the MBT as a weapon of maneuver
and armored brigades are considered the go-to unit for breakthrough and exploitation
they are the backbone of the army

>>63894060
>and so this remains NATO doctrine to this day
US doctrine was to use airpower to as a force multiplier to allow small groups of infantry to hold their own against a larger force while interdicting movement to slow down a reaction to allow their own armored force to easily move from place to place and counter-attack enemy forces
airpower was important, vital even, but their ultimate goal was to create the conditions necessary for victory not win the war by itself, which obviously not possible
saying it was more important than their tanks is like saying your right foot mattered more than your left foot

>>63894127
>US doctrine was to use airpower to as a force multiplier to allow small groups of infantry to hold their own against a larger force while interdicting movement to slow down a reaction to allow their own armored force to easily move from place to place and counter-attack enemy forces
US (and NATO) doctrine is manoeuvrist and has been for quite some time, and it's left open to discussion whether such counterattacks will use tanks or not
some European armies in particular (wrongly, imho) decided that tanks are essentially infantry support rather than the main effort
>saying it was more important than their tanks is like saying your right foot mattered more than your left foot
because that's precisely what it is: NATO officially regards air superiority as a "precondition" for attack
go look in any land warfare doctrine publication; you won't find them saying the same about tanks

>>63892699 (OP)
>>63893693
>>63894050
First off, OP is a fag who has never been in a firefight, now let's see what are OP frames of reference to declare tanks dead:
>Vatniggers, know for vranyo and dedovshchina, send to the frontline cold war era rusty smekalka turtle tanks filled with mobiks in suicide attacks without any backup, please ignore even under such stupid circumstances ukies may miss multiple drone rounds and they also use tanks as defensive direct fire platforms, just focus on the successful videos okay?
>palestinians, after spending most of 20 years of world relief in underground installations and assorted military equipment, manage to sneak out in the middle of a urban zone to land some hit on merkavas, no you cannot see the aftermath, please ignore the crew very often survives and tank is back on action after a few days
>assorted subsaharan nog wars where some t-55 got popped, no, it's not relevant that even t-55s still work quite well when doing pushes and shock factor
So, as you can see OP has no fucking idea what he is talking about, has a more biased opinion than an indian shill at /pol/ and should go serve in real combat or something, maybe we got lucky and he gets killed.

>>63894085
AI!