4 ms·

I think you need to look at the cost trajectory. ATGMs get cheaper over time as cost of electronics comes down. Tanks get more expensive as they update to mo

I think you need to look at the cost trajectory. ATGMs get cheaper over time as cost of electronics comes down. Tanks get more expensive as they update to more exotic composite armor, active protection systems, fancy sensors etc. Estimates vary, but a new NATO ATGM is probably around ~5% the cost of a new Russian Tank. A missle can sit on a shelf for years, pop in fresh batteries and it is good to go. A tank requires frequent maintenance and lots of expensive crew training to be effective.

ransom1538 5y ago
Training a modern tank crew is not easy either. Think of the logistics too. There is a entire staff of people maintaining these things in battle zones. Gasoline resupply, tracks, electronics, shipment, crossing rivers, it's endless - in hot zone! THEN some 19 year old on a moped wastes it with a javelin.
- syntheweave 5y ago
  It's very similar to what brought down knights on the battlefield(cheaper massed gunfire defeated plate armor), although the result for the next few centuries favored substituting lighter cavalry forces, right up until the World Wars brought the tank in as the new knight. Tanks won't disappear immediately - there's still justifications to have something in the role, perhaps with adjustments to the details - but it has to be part of a combined arms doctrine. The key element in these tank kills is lack of support. Russia has long been thought to be behind on modern doctrine and the performance to date in Ukraine drives this home: in an environment that demands high levels of force coordination and expensive gadgets, a cannon fodder offensive creates extremely high attrition, and the demographics and economy of Russia today aren't as favorable to absorbing this as in the past(older, fewer young men to lose, dependencies on the rest of the world to rearm).
jerlam 5y ago
As long as it's not a US Javelin, those things are absurdly expensive: Javelin: $250K missile + $250K launcher T-72: $1000K-1200K (1-1.2 million) Of course, non-US options are much cheaper: NLAW: $40K Stuhna-P: $20K
- CSSer 5y ago
  Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me, especially given that it’s fire and forget and capable of hitting them where their armor is thinnest. The pentagon’s latest numbers claim that out of 112 Javelins fired in Ukraine so far, 100 have hit their target[0]. [0] https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_invasion_conflict_war/analysis_us_javelin_anti-tank_missile_used_in_ukraine_becomes_a_nightmare_for_russian_tanks.amp.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_invasion_co...
  - Melkman 5y ago
    It's 250k and a bit: the launcher is reusable.
    - MonkeyClub 5y ago
      Javelin: 250k Launcher: 250k Getting to engage the Russkies via proxy while maintaining moral high ground and zero American casualties: priceless
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me That's fine as long as you don't forget that a tank is designed to do the same thing. Nobody builds a $6 million tank to destroy $3 million worth of targets.
    - yakak 5y ago
      Sure they do, that is the nature of asymmetric warfare. In any US fiasco, a guy making 24k could call in a 500k airstrike on any antique of military origin. The point of engaging in a foreign war isn't a profit for a government to distribute to its citizens, it is to reallocate or destroy assets of the populace within the country to ensure a majority of internal power is consolidated on internal allies of the entity that can declare war.
- nicbou 5y ago

ransom1538 5y ago

Training a modern tank crew is not easy either. Think of the logistics too. There is a entire staff of people maintaining these things in battle zones. Gasoline resupply, tracks, electronics, shipment, crossing rivers, it's endless - in hot zone! THEN some 19 year old on a moped wastes it with a javelin.

syntheweave 5y ago
It's very similar to what brought down knights on the battlefield(cheaper massed gunfire defeated plate armor), although the result for the next few centuries favored substituting lighter cavalry forces, right up until the World Wars brought the tank in as the new knight. Tanks won't disappear immediately - there's still justifications to have something in the role, perhaps with adjustments to the details - but it has to be part of a combined arms doctrine. The key element in these tank kills is lack of support. Russia has long been thought to be behind on modern doctrine and the performance to date in Ukraine drives this home: in an environment that demands high levels of force coordination and expensive gadgets, a cannon fodder offensive creates extremely high attrition, and the demographics and economy of Russia today aren't as favorable to absorbing this as in the past(older, fewer young men to lose, dependencies on the rest of the world to rearm).

jerlam 5y ago

As long as it's not a US Javelin, those things are absurdly expensive: Javelin: $250K missile + $250K launcher T-72: $1000K-1200K (1-1.2 million) Of course, non-US options are much cheaper: NLAW: $40K Stuhna-P: $20K

CSSer 5y ago
Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me, especially given that it’s fire and forget and capable of hitting them where their armor is thinnest. The pentagon’s latest numbers claim that out of 112 Javelins fired in Ukraine so far, 100 have hit their target[0]. [0] https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_invasion_conflict_war/analysis_us_javelin_anti-tank_missile_used_in_ukraine_becomes_a_nightmare_for_russian_tanks.amp.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_invasion_co...
- Melkman 5y ago
  It's 250k and a bit: the launcher is reusable.
  - MonkeyClub 5y ago
    Javelin: 250k Launcher: 250k Getting to engage the Russkies via proxy while maintaining moral high ground and zero American casualties: priceless
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me That's fine as long as you don't forget that a tank is designed to do the same thing. Nobody builds a $6 million tank to destroy $3 million worth of targets.
  - yakak 5y ago
    Sure they do, that is the nature of asymmetric warfare. In any US fiasco, a guy making 24k could call in a 500k airstrike on any antique of military origin. The point of engaging in a foreign war isn't a profit for a government to distribute to its citizens, it is to reallocate or destroy assets of the populace within the country to ensure a majority of internal power is consolidated on internal allies of the entity that can declare war.
nicbou 5y ago