4 ms·

FAR FAR FAR easier and cheaper to replace armored vehicles, especially for Russia in particular. The biggest problem will be the modern electronics and sensor s

FAR FAR FAR easier and cheaper to replace armored vehicles, especially for Russia in particular. The biggest problem will be the modern electronics and sensor systems. I think a lot of infrared sensor systems, ballistic computers, etc. are sold globally by Thales (France), Rafael, or Elbit (Israel). IF Russia imports those, and I think it has in the past, the global sanctions will disrupt those parts supplies, and they are pretty important to effective situational awareness and accuracy in a modern MBT. The rest of a tank is mostly steel and composites that can be churned out fairly quickly at Uralvagonzavod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralvagonzavod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralvagonzavod But if they can't import the latest and greatest parts to make T-90Ms or T-72B3Ms....they have such a huge stockpile of "good enough" older T-72s in storage, they can just use those with a minor refurbishment period. With what we've seen of their tactics and (lack of) skills, it won't seriously impact their battlefield results to field early 1980s-era tank technology.

etempleton 5y ago
Good enough against whom? Russian tanks are getting absolutely shredded by antitank personnel if reports are true. Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle and they don’t have enough Armatas to make a difference. I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point. All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT. I think there was a US report a few years back about how modern tanks are no longer really the centerpiece of the battlefield anymore. Similar to how the battleship was thought to be the centerpiece at the beginning of WW2 and then it quickly became apparent it was the aircraft carrier.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  Tanks have gone through evolutions of survivability before. Through 60s and 70s they basically gave up on surviving a hit and armor actually got thinner while speed and armament improved. Then composites, ceramics, and reactives made it possible to survive an enemy tank or rpg hit again. Now armor is less useful again , but active protection is on the rise.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>Good enough against whom? Russian tanks are getting absolutely shredded by antitank personnel if reports are true. That's due more to shit tactics (exacerbated by the early spring thaw that has limited off-road movement) than to any specific limitations of their hardware. There is VERY little footage of dismounted infantry screening Russian tanks, or competent employment of other recon assets. Look up some ANNA News footage embedded with the Syrian Arab Army in Jhobar, a Damascus suburb. It took the Syrians years of errors/casualties, but they eventually learned to storm dug-in fanatical enemies in urban environments, and they did it with crappier T-72s than the Russians are fielding now. There is a plethora of modern ATGMs dumped into Syrian insurgent hands too. >>>Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle That's a crew quality issue as well. A T-90 or T-72B3 is absolutely a threat to an Abrams. >>>I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point. Increasing urbanization/population densities worldwide make sweeping wars of maneuver across open terrain less viable. Tanks are useful in urban environments, but require well-trained soldiers experienced in combined arms (German Kampfgruppe in Stalingrad, US Army-Marine teams in Fallujah). >>>All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT. As my sister comment touches on, this is changing as tank protection moves away from thick slabs of passive armor, to every tank fielding active protection systems such as the Israeli Trophy ( https://youtu.be/6aA9HsmLHBQ https://youtu.be/6aA9HsmLHBQ ). <-- also some of the coolest footage of shaped charge warheads detonating. Combine an APS with a laser air-defense system either on another vehicle (current tech: https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/turkey_uses_laser_weapon_technology_to_shoot_down_chinese_uav_wing_loong_ii_in_libya.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_mil... ) or on the tank's turret (future tech), and these threats are moderately neutralized. Then the advantages of the main battle tank will be retained: mobility, protection, and firepower.

etempleton 5y ago

Good enough against whom? Russian tanks are getting absolutely shredded by antitank personnel if reports are true. Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle and they don’t have enough Armatas to make a difference. I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point. All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT. I think there was a US report a few years back about how modern tanks are no longer really the centerpiece of the battlefield anymore. Similar to how the battleship was thought to be the centerpiece at the beginning of WW2 and then it quickly became apparent it was the aircraft carrier.

idontwantthis 5y ago
Tanks have gone through evolutions of survivability before. Through 60s and 70s they basically gave up on surviving a hit and armor actually got thinner while speed and armament improved. Then composites, ceramics, and reactives made it possible to survive an enemy tank or rpg hit again. Now armor is less useful again , but active protection is on the rise.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>Good enough against whom? Russian tanks are getting absolutely shredded by antitank personnel if reports are true. That's due more to shit tactics (exacerbated by the early spring thaw that has limited off-road movement) than to any specific limitations of their hardware. There is VERY little footage of dismounted infantry screening Russian tanks, or competent employment of other recon assets. Look up some ANNA News footage embedded with the Syrian Arab Army in Jhobar, a Damascus suburb. It took the Syrians years of errors/casualties, but they eventually learned to storm dug-in fanatical enemies in urban environments, and they did it with crappier T-72s than the Russians are fielding now. There is a plethora of modern ATGMs dumped into Syrian insurgent hands too. >>>Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle That's a crew quality issue as well. A T-90 or T-72B3 is absolutely a threat to an Abrams. >>>I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point. Increasing urbanization/population densities worldwide make sweeping wars of maneuver across open terrain less viable. Tanks are useful in urban environments, but require well-trained soldiers experienced in combined arms (German Kampfgruppe in Stalingrad, US Army-Marine teams in Fallujah). >>>All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT. As my sister comment touches on, this is changing as tank protection moves away from thick slabs of passive armor, to every tank fielding active protection systems such as the Israeli Trophy ( https://youtu.be/6aA9HsmLHBQ https://youtu.be/6aA9HsmLHBQ ). <-- also some of the coolest footage of shaped charge warheads detonating. Combine an APS with a laser air-defense system either on another vehicle (current tech: https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/turkey_uses_laser_weapon_technology_to_shoot_down_chinese_uav_wing_loong_ii_in_libya.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_mil... ) or on the tank's turret (future tech), and these threats are moderately neutralized. Then the advantages of the main battle tank will be retained: mobility, protection, and firepower.