No point

And yet countries still continue to buy tanks regardless

despite all these variables, the first hit itself mostly already damage the optics, sensors and whatnot on the tank's external and partially the internals. the crew and innards mostly intact but without external optics, sensors etc theyre as good as blindfolded. i was watching a simulation on tank shells onto even modern tanks, a simple basic AP round itself while have no chance of penetrating western tanks armor from front, the kinetic impact is strong enough to render crew concussed and damage to systems, crippling the tank.

imagine a situation like this. you and your tank crew are moving from post A to post B, suddenly a tank round/ATGM hits you. everything went dark, sensors kaput, optics cant see externally anymore and suddenly tank halts because the driver is incapacitated or tracks broken. what do you do? exit tank to be ambushed or stay inside and await the inevitable 2nd round that could potentially rip the internals? you get the gist

no doubt abt this, but my point is ATGM are outpacing the western tanks even more. ATGMs are designed to destroy tanks, obviously they have the advantage considering the tanks are much more limited by weight and sizing. no point building an indestructible tank to only be crippled by it being too heavy or immobile for use

Your posts are getting more inane. What makes you so sure the first hit will damage the optics or sensors or even the battle manage system on board. In fact, tanks have been known to take hits and dish out just fine. This is not a computet game. Injury to tanks or combat kills or outright destruction are totally different things.

I would agree that atgms are dangerous to tanks. But i will not agree that atgms are outpaced by tanks period. Futhermore, tank armour is being improved upon to deal with the latest missiles and tanks now even come with active protection systems. Add that to tactics.

Countries are buying more tanks. The euros, Us, china, russia, etc. all have ongoing tank projects. The poles threw away their pt71s, gave their leo2s back to germany (as the germans want to reconstitute their tank force) and buying several hundred korean tanks

wait, youre telling me a heavy dense kinetic projectile travelling at supersonic speeds will not damage the external sensors and optics of the tanks when impacted? 

youre severely underestimating how strong ATGMs are. like i said, they might not penetrate from 1st hit due to systems like APS, or how they negate the warheads but the impact alone is extremely strong and will damage the externals and internals of the tanks. already a huge compromise in the tank's capability if it gets hit. how sure are you the systems are running fine?
this is correct, this is why APS are extremely valuable + other protection systems to combine to maintain highest level of survivability.

youre still missing the point at the end, my point is tanks are now used differently compared to WW2 era due how dangerous ATGMs are. not the complete obsoletion of tanks! geez, countries wont stop using tanks because AT exists.

The IDF employed several hundred tanks in combat. According to official reports, about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated

A colonel commanding an armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle, mentioned in an interview that during the war that hundreds of antitank missiles were fired on his unit and in total only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges.

One Challenger 2 was allegedly struck by seventy RPGs—and emerged with its crew unscratched. Another survived seventeen RPGs and a Milan missile, and despite the battle damage, was back in combat the next day.

tanks are easily found by drones  which can fly at high altitude.

tanks are easily found by drones  which can fly at high altitude.

So, is the FA-50 deal confirmed?

Performance of Merkava tanks:

https://defense-update.com/20070614_lebanon...ts%20penetrated
Performance of Challenger 2 tanks:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/...eeds-some-21634
Western tanks are not indestructible.But they sure as hell not easy to knock out.

wait, youre telling me a heavy dense kinetic projectile travelling at supersonic speeds will not damage the external sensors and optics of the tanks when impacted? 

youre severely underestimating how strong ATGMs are. like i said, they might not penetrate from 1st hit due to systems like APS, or how they negate the warheads but the impact alone is extremely strong and will damage the externals and internals of the tanks. already a huge compromise in the tank's capability if it gets hit. how sure are you the systems are running fine?
this is correct, this is why APS are extremely valuable + other protection systems to combine to maintain highest level of survivability.

youre still missing the point at the end, my point is tanks are now used differently compared to WW2 era due how dangerous ATGMs are. not the complete obsoletion of tanks! geez, countries wont stop using tanks because AT exists.

Mai189 is right that a tank being hit won't necessarily destroy the CITV, visual thermal optical sights of tanks. It depends where the missile pr projectiles hit and how big is the warhead.

Man portable ATGM usually have smaller warheads meant to penetrate tanks on thinnest armour delivering warhead to kill crew or detonate ammo stowage in order to spark cookoff.

Attack helicopter or vehicle mounted ATGM such as AGM-114 or Vikhr would have bigger warheads to create more damage to tanks penetratimg thicker armour.

Proper air to ground missiles that weighs over 500lb such as AGM-65, Kh-29, Kh-38, Kh-25 would deliver heavier blow that would destroy tanks for real that are carried by aircraft.

like i mention, i disagree. even with a small warhead the impact is still significant to introduce stress to the tank. especially the sensors and optics which arent as robust as the armor. they are built to take hits like what Mai189 said but they are still damaged in the process

think of it like in rock climbing equipment, there is a reason carabiners are changed often as during climbs you introduce microfractures and stress to the equipment. would you have more confidence using a brand new carabiner or one thats been through 20 climbs?

like i mention, i disagree. even with a small warhead the impact is still significant to introduce stress to the tank. especially the sensors and optics which arent as robust as the armor. they are built to take hits like what Mai189 said but they are still damaged in the process

think of it like in rock climbing equipment, there is a reason carabiners are changed often as during climbs you introduce microfractures and stress to the equipment. would you have more confidence using a brand new carabiner or one thats been through 20 climbs?

like i mention, i disagree. even with a small warhead the impact is still significant to introduce stress to the tank. especially the sensors and optics which arent as robust as the armor. they are built to take hits like what Mai189 said but they are still damaged in the process

think of it like in rock climbing equipment, there is a reason carabiners are changed often as during climbs you introduce microfractures and stress to the equipment. would you have more confidence using a brand new carabiner or one thats been through 20 climbs?

Despite their effectiveness, modern anti-tank guided missiles were not the primary killers of Russian tanks. According to an adviser to Ukraine’s most senior military officer: “[A]nti-tank missiles slowed the Russians down [during the advance towards Kyiv], but what killed them was our artillery. That was what broke their units.” Indeed, countless videos posted by the Ukrainian military have confirmed this, including those showing the ill-fated offensive by Russia’s 6th Tank Regiment in Brovary in mid-March. In addition to artillery, many Russian tanks were destroyed or disabled by Soviet-era systems, such as TM-62 anti-tank mines. Javelins, next generation light anti-tank weapons, and Ukrainian-made Stugna-P anti-tank systems have been effective, but they are just one component of Ukraine’s anti-tank efforts. Indeed, they likely destroyed a relatively smaller share of Russia’s tanks during its offensive in the Donbas, where Russia conducted a more coherent combined-arms operation. It is also important to note that public sources may not provide a representative view of how Russian tanks were damaged. Russian tanks struck by Stugna-P or Javelins are much more likely to be filmed and uploaded to social media than tanks damaged by mines, which may not be recorded as frequently. Of course, artillery battalions are not cheap, so the available evidence regarding tank losses in Ukraine does not particularly support the argument that we are seeing a “swing in favor of smaller and cheaper defensive weapons.” Ukraine has also suffered heavy tank losses, losing 244 tanks as documented by Oryx, of which 128 were destroyed. It does not appear most of these losses were from anti-tank guided missiles either.