view the rest of the comments
the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
I thought maybe it was a comment on how stuff like drones and global imaging have made modern warfare revolve around long-range artillery/unmanned aerial strikes and then rapid troop movement
i also have no idea what I'm talking about
This. With human carry able weapons that can vaporize a tank, tanks are basically just clunky mobile artillery.
That was always the case though, yet tanks were useful. I would say drones are much more impactful, just as the increasing cost and complexity of tanks made tanks much rarer and thus decreased the role of most important antitank weapon (other tank) too.
Tanks can do the same to other tanks and humans over much longer ranges and more precisely.
Ukrainian mercs were very sad to learn that their famous javelins were outranged by several magnitudes by russian tanks.
It is only in urban areas where your argument holds true.