16 ms·
On Killing Tanks
- willvarfar 7y agoIts easy to imagine smarter missiles that have multiple independent warheads and contain jammers and attempt to fly around to approach from vulnerable angles etc. Its also easier to imagine infantry falling back on indirect fire, where they identify targets for artillery and aircraft. RPGs etc made cheaply-equipped soldiers able to take on expensive tanks. But now extremely expensive tanks are becoming immune to them, and the next step for soldiers is also expensive.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoIn ww2 the tactical doctrine for German troops was to engage with three PanzerFaust teams two missiles would be fired initially with the most experienced team held back.
- arethuza 7y agoI recently read an excellent account of what things were like as a British tank commander in 1994 & 1945 from Normandy onwards - "grim" doesn't do it justice. Imagine as a 19 year old commander of 4 tank platoon being told that your life expectancy was two weeks! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30145506-tank-action https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30145506-tank-action
- C1sc0cat 7y agoI suspect that the experience of the opposing forces where much worse if you read German soldiers experiences of facing D day
- jacobush 7y agoThe fighting in Berling was teenagers, sometimes preteens wielding the Faust. They called it "panzerknacken" i.e. "armour knocking" or "armour smashing".
- michaelt 7y agoI saw an interesting talk about Soviet WW2 tanks [1] and one of the things it said was the Soviets had done research and determined that a tank survives an average of 14 hours in combat, and in its entire life only needed an engine and transmission able to drive 1500 km [1] https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=2321 https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=2321
- chewz 7y agoAnd Russian response in Berlin 1945 was simply take as many spring beds from German homes as available and weld them to the armour. Crude but totaly effective against PanzerFaust.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoSimilar approaches were / are used to protect against RPGs in Iraq. Literally just welding metal slats to the front to cause them to go off before hitting armor.
- chewz 7y agohttps://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/5/4/7/12298_4-auto_downl.jpg https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/5/4/7/12298_4-auto_downl.jp... https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/9/3/7/12298_2-auto_downl.jpg https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/9/3/7/12298_2-auto_downl.jp... https://defense-update.com/20060102_slat-stryker.html https://defense-update.com/20060102_slat-stryker.html
- goatsi 7y agoThe goal of slat armour isn't to detonate the RPG, as the jet from the shaped charge will easily penetrate even with the extra ~50cm of space. In WW2 some US tank crews tried to protect their tanks by piling sandbags on them, but the extra spacing actually made Panzerfausts more effective as the armour piercing jet had more space to fully form before hitting metal. The goal with the slats is to catch and mangle the incoming warhead, so that it either fails to detonate, or doesn't form the penetrating jet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BupgOgXd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BupgOgXd4
- Avalaxy 7y agoAre tanks the new battleship? It seems to me that the heavily armored, heavily armed, slow vehicles are no longer a match for the fast-paced and dynamic modern warfare. They are sitting ducks for attack helicopters, jets and well-coordinated infantry teams. Interesting read by the way. It's crazy to see what sort of smart inventions are created in this arms race between David and Goliath.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoHelicopters are a bit fragile and don't forget that tanks will engage at 1k plus yards. Using tanks for COIN and FIBU is quite different
- tome 7y agoCOIN = counter-insurgency? FIBU = ?
- arethuza 7y agoFighting In Built Up areas?
- KineticLensman 7y agoFIBUA = Fighting In Built-up Areas
- mrec 7y agoApparently that's the official British Army term. The unofficial term is FISH, which stands for Fighting In Someone's House.
- jeffrallen 7y agoShould also be called a war crime.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
- paganel 7y agoI'm obviously not an expert on this but avoiding the killing of tanks also depends on some sort of air-superiority. I'm saying "some sort" because you don't need to control the airspace of a whole country in order to defend against tanks, you just need some "clean" space for your artillery do do its thing while stationed 20-30 km or more behind the front while being helped by a few drones. As recent events in Syria (by "recent" I mean January-February of this year) have shown drone-guided artillery strikes are almost the perfect deterrent against tanks or any form of technicals on the ground, to be honest. There were even videos of Russian strikes hitting two guys on a motorcycle. Don't see tanks having any chance against that combo (i.e. artillery + drones), unless helped by air-support. There are countless examples on Twitter, this is one of them, involving the Turkish Army [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/status/1233336910434783232 https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/status/123333691043478323...
- willvarfar 7y agoThe systems tanks use for identifying and defending against incoming shells are also able to identify the origin of those shells. Artillery is more vulnerable to counter battery fire than ever? There are systems like Archer that fire and move long before the shell lands, but its still ratcheting up?
- paganel 7y agoBy reading the technical details of the Krasnopol on its wiki page it looks like "moving before the shell lands" will do little when it comes to avoiding the incoming shell. At least that's what I can understand from this fragment on that page: > The system functions as follows. The observer determines the target location (e.g. map coordinates or bearing and distance from their own position), ensures that their laser target designator can 'mark' the target and requests or orders a fire mission against the target using Krasnopol. A gun is then aimed at the target location and a guided shell is fired. The firing unit uses their 1A35K command device to send a signal via a communications link confirming the firing of the projectile to the 1A35I observation post device with the observer. The laser target designator is then used to illuminate the target and the in-flight projectile detects the radiant laser energy reflected by the target and the navigation system steers the shell towards the point of greatest incident energy—the designated target with top attack pattern. The iris of the optical seeker head is protected by a cap which is ejected by a mechanical timer upon firing. Low visibility conditions are of course a deterrent against this type of attack. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system)
- keiferski 7y agoThe link isn't loading, but: recently I was reading about the Mongol Empire (started circa ±1200) and how their military tactics were extremely innovative for the time, specifically for their method of operating as separate, independent units across vast distances. Apparently, this method of warfare was ignored for hundreds of years and only came into use again when mechanized transports (like tanks) became widely adopted. The Soviets developed this into "Deep Battle" which was extensively used on the Eastern Front during WW2. Deep Battle doctrine bore a heavy resemblance to Mongol strategic methods, substituting tanks, motorized troop carriers, artillery, and airplanes for Mongol horse archers, lancers, and field artillery. The Red Army even went so far as to copy Subutai's use of smokescreens on the battlefield to cover troop movements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
- lqet 7y agoAlso: > Though unknown to the west for many centuries, Subutai's exploits were first featured by the British military theorist B. H. Liddell Hart in his book Great Captains Unveiled after World War I. Liddell Hart used the example of the Mongols under Genghis and Subutai to demonstrate how a new mechanized army could ideally fight using the principles of mobility, dispersion, surprise, and indirect means. Though he gained little support in Britain, Liddell Hart's books were read in Germany, whose armies during the initial 1940–41 invasions of France and Russia bore an astonishing similarity to the campaigns of Subutai, 700 years earlier. In particular, Erwin Rommel and George Patton were avid students of Mongol campaigns
- nerdponx 7y agoWhy would an innovation like this go ignored for so incredibly long?
- ranger207 7y agoIt requires significant mobility and logistics to achieve: every Mongol had horses and could live off the land, but armies between them and WWII relied on infantry and artillery who required long logistical trains. It wasn't until mechanization that the Mongol's strategies could be replicated.
- KineticLensman 7y agoYou don't necessarily need to kill tanks, just make them hide. The NATO air mission against the Serbs [0] in 1999 only destroyed 93 out of 600 Serbian tanks but had the effect of preventing the Serbs from using them effectively. This helped level the playing field between the well-trained Serbian army and the Kosovo Liberation Army. After the surrender, when the Serbs drove their undamaged tanks home, the "look how many you missed" attitude missed the point. They were undamaged because they had effectively suppressed, and hidden in underground car parks, etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
- chrisseaton 7y agoBut a hidden tank becomes an armoured, sealed, high-endurance OP, with a hugely powerful sensor and comms suite. You think you're fixing them - but really are they fixing you?
- KineticLensman 7y agoYes, although there's an old joke about how a modern tank that can't shoot is just a very heavy and incredibly expensive mobile phone. Also, it needs to keep an engine running to power its sensor and comms suite.
- marktangotango 7y agoThe engine is generally a auxillary power unit mounted in the bussel rack of an m1a2 for example. Some may assume parent is referring to the main engine which on m1's consume quite a lot of fuel.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Marazan 7y agoIt did not destroy 93 tanks. The wiki page you link even spells it out. They air campaign destroyed an order of magnitude less, maybe even as few as 3 tanks. They hit decoys or fuck all. Far from levelli g the playing field ethinic cleansing rate increased as the air campaign was waged. The Kosovo air campaign was one of the most total an utter failures of recent times yet people still try and paint it as a success. Unbelievable.
- sho 7y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20200323100053/https://mwi.usma.edu/on-killing-tanks/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200323100053/https://mwi.usma.... And some amazing videos of the Trophy APS system mentioned in the article doing their thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aA9HsmLHBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aA9HsmLHBQ
- 2rsf 7y agoTrophy is amazing, but it has it's limitations. It limits friendly infantry from getting close, and still get saturated and in need of recharge.
- jeffrallen 7y agoWar is stupid.
- dang 7y agoMaybe so, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? We're trying for a different sort of forum. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- whatever1 7y agosure let’s talk about how important military spending is while the global economy has come to a halt because of a virus and the advanced nations are crying for help.
- sslayer 7y agoYeah, but can we quarantine war? People are dying out there, and we can't even get to people to stop going out to the bars! And you want to stop wars?
- whatever1 7y agoWhat does spending on military $600B/y get you? Capability of winning wars? America has not won a war since WW2. National security? Think about 9/11. Geopolitical influence? See the middle east mess. Economic wealth? Well if you invested a trillion per year in any sector of the economy you would have spurred economic activity of similar magnitude with the defense sector, that could actually have some benefits for the society, e.g. proper healthcare.
- Koshkin 7y agoMilitary spending is what keeps US economy afloat; the rest is just peanuts by comparison.
- whatever1 7y ago
- baybal2 7y agoTanks are by definition not a defensive weapon. If they are not advancing onto an enemy strongpoint during war, they are being wasted. USSR had a plan to move 20000 tanks and 80000 units of support armour into Europe all at once with a very idea that no low intensity aerial, mine warfare or guerrilla anti-tank campaign can stop it all before all airfields and commando bases are overwhelmed.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoA one way trip - there was no planed way of retreating from that what I recall
- baybal2 7y agoYes, that was the plan. To force nato into the most costly trades possible, early on. They wanted to force nato to field their heaviest military assets to the frontlines at the time when nuclear rockets will be flying left and right. And they would attack over very wide fronts for the first few days, before they concentrate their forces, thus concealing their breakthrough trajectory until the most costly trades are done.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoIt's WW3, mang. If this is going down then chances are nukes are on the table too -- so go all in.
- Der_Einzige 7y agoThat's why we had tactical nukes ready to go to try to counter that threat
- baybal2 7y agoTry nuking 100000 units of armour
- Der_Einzige 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap Not that hard to nuke the passage that they'd be forced to take for a land invasion. That was NATO planning in the 60s and 70s
- JohnBooty 7y agoAm I the only one that is absolutely disgusted by violence, yet absolutely loves reading articles such as this?
- munificent 7y agoI'm so with you. I hate the function these are designed for, but it's so satisfying seeing such deeply-functional engineering. Like some kind of weird problem-solving porn.
- bobloblaw45 7y agoHow about fooling the APS into firing at duds until its munitions are depleted and then shooting a rocket? Like a series of high caliber, slower moving projectiles made out of something super radar reflective at reflective angles?
- blaser-waffle 7y agoHmmm... basically just setting off blasting caps and model rockets with enough uumph to trip the artillery radars.
- vkou 7y agoWhile you're standing around, firing blanks at the tank, how do you expect the tank will react to you? It will, ah, be highly incentivised to shoot back. And it won't be shooting at you with blanks. Pretty much all the tactics listed in TFA seem to be desperation moves.
- bendbro 7y agoIf you get excited by this topic, I suggest you give War Thunder a try. The game has horrible UX, but: 1. The game does the best (?) job I've seen of any game at simulating a wide variety of historical vehicles, shells, and armor. 2. The game has a low barrier to entry: no fast twitch reactions, and slow gameplay. 3. It has a fairly fun meta to improve within. 4. The community loosely associated around it can be both fun and informative: PhlyDaily, The Chieftain's Hatch, RedEffect, Potential History, and Lindybeige
- sa46 7y agoI served in a light-infantry battalion, specifically in our heavy-weapons company. Most of the doctrine is available publicly. For a heavy weapons company, see Appendix D of https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6672_ATP%203-21x20%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6672... Going against tanks as an infantry unit is a tough spot. Tanks are significantly faster, more lethal, and harder to kill than any light-infantry unit. In a defense, light infantry uses engagement area development to attempt to even the odds. Engagement area development is similar to building a defense in depth. A quick summary: 0. Analyze the enemy composition and disposition to determine likely avenues of approach. After that, build your engagement areas on those approaches. 1. When the enemy is far away, attempt to disrupt or turn their movement into the engagement area. This is typically a combination of scouts, artillery, or obstacles to channel the enemy into the engagement area. 2. Once the enemy is in the engagement area, keep them there (fix) as long as possible. Use priority targets and sectors of fire to efficiently concentrate fires on the most valuable targets which almost certainly includes tanks. 3. Finally, you block the enemy with obstacles to move to secondary positions. The author's first tactic of a trial shot of engaging at range is part of step 1. The goal is to force the enemy to change their movement, slow them down, or disable the active protection measures. This is a bit more difficult with a TOW missile than with a Javelin. Modern tanks will auto-rotate if you laser range find them directly. Since a tank round travels significantly faster than a TOW missile, a tank can kill you before the TOW missile reaches them. Since a TOW is guided by an operator via a wire, the missle with then miss. The second tactic of multiple missiles would go in step 2. To avoid firing excessive missiles at targets, one technique is to "shard" the engagement area so subordinate units are responsible for parts of it. The third tactic of using grenade launchers and mortars is questionable. We were taught that tanks are basically invulnerable to indirect fire (mortars and artillery). I don't think a 60mm mortar would have any significant effect on a tank unless you score a direct hit. The precision on indirect fire isn't good enough to directly hit a tank. Hoping to trigger the tank's active defense measure is a long shot. Also, if you're using a M320 grenade launcher with a max effective range of 320m against a tank, you're going to die soon unless you have some other significant advantage like urban terrain. The MK19 automatic grenade launcher is a much better weapon for trying to prematurely damage the tank's defense with a range of 1500m.
- nojvek 7y agoWar is nasty, although the rate of invention during world war was impressive. Rocket technology really improved as everyone was trying to figure out how to make better missiles. Same with jet engines and submarines. Computation, Cryptography also got major upgrades. When things get scarce, the only natural solution is to fight it out. Natural selection is very mean and nasty.