4 ms·

Given the apparent vulnerability of MBTs (main battle tanks) as demonstrated in Ukraine to cheap-ish weapons, is this the end of the road for MBTs?

ceeplusplus 5y ago
I'm guessing we're going to see more active protection [1] that tries to detonate incoming projectiles at a distance to nullify the effectiveness of shaped charges. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeuVHKc92U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeuVHKc92U
- picture 5y ago
  Good lord.. While I know about existence of APS especially on Merkava tanks, this video really shows how modern warfare can brush right up against science fiction. We're able to detect an incoming round and automatically kill it with a directed explosion, all faster than you can blink. What, are we going to see munitions that has submunitions of its own to counter the countermeasure next? (That might be a reasonable development actually) Either way I'm fortunate that these things aren't used around me, and I'm not in any danger. I would love to one day see those C-beams glitter, as a spectator in safety
  - Someone 5y ago
    > Either way I'm fortunate that these things aren't used around me, and I'm not in any danger. At the 2m20s mark, they claim this leaves personnel 10m away unharmed. So, it seems you can watch from quite nearby. You’d have to avoid being hit by the incoming stuff, though, and I guess wearing hearing protection is strongly advised, too. As to countermeasures, I would guess this doesn’t work well against kinetic energy projectiles that don’t explode but depend on mass and velocity to do damage. Or would it?
cwmma 5y ago
Not really, everybody has known that tanks on their own, unsupported by infantry are incredibly vulnerable to anti-tank missiles since, at least the Yom Kippur War (50 years ago) probably longer. The Russians for various reasons didn't and the results were predictable. So no MBTs aren't obsolete they just are very easy to break if you use them wrong. Also there are newer active protection systems that can defeat missiles like the ones being used, the Russian tanks in the invasion either don't have them or don't have the ones that can detect threats from above.
- sorokod 5y ago
  Actually Yom Kippur war went well for Israel's armour in the north (Golan Heights), the largest tank battle ever if memory serves. Can you reference the relevant active protection systems?
  - cwmma 5y ago
    Re: Yom Kippor in the south is where Egyptian anti tank misses did shocking damage to Israeli tanks which caused a lot of people to predict the imminent death of the MBT 50 years ago. The Russian active protection system is called Arena [1] 1. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arena.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arena.htm
    - sorokod 5y ago
      Looks like a very selective view of the Yom Kippur war given what has happened on the Syrian front and the subsequent development of Israel's own MBT. Can you please share some references to "caused lot of people to predict the imminent death of the MBT 50 years ago" ?
      - cwmma 5y ago
        https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2sparks98.pdf https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2sparks98.pdf https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2015/jan_mar/Elmonairy.html https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201... https://www.baen.com/tanksfuture https://www.baen.com/tanksfuture
        sorokod 5y ago
        Thanks!
  - jdkee 5y ago
    The largest tank battle would be the Battle of Kursk. See https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kursk https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kursk
ranger207 5y ago
Well, what would an MBT be replaced with? You'll still need a vehicle carrying heavy weapons to take out bunkers, enemy vehicles, etc. Maybe you can have an ATGM carrier with a bunch of missiles. But missiles are expensive, so maybe if you fit a specialized fire control system to a gun you can get the same accuracy as a missile but cheaper. That's going to be heavy, so you'll probably want tracks to spread the weight[0]. Then you'll want to protect your big and heavy vehicle too so it can't be killed by say someone with a common RPG-7. And now what do you have? A tank. Certainly things are going to change in the future. Active protection systems (APSs) are going to be basically required, and I wouldn't be surprised if APSs became the main armor. After WWII the effectiveness of HEAT made designers believe armor was ineffective, so many post-war designs sacrificed armor for speed, such as the Leopard 1, so something similar could happen again. But an important part of the equation is tactics. A very similar question to "why do we still need MBTs" is "why do we still need infantry" and the answer is the same: they synergise[1]. Infantry need tanks to blow up hard points, and tanks need infantry to keep an eye on the surroundings, suppress and occupy potential firing points, take buildings to prevent them from being used to fire ATGMs and to use to look out for enemy ATGMs, etc. Infantry itself doesn't do anything to reduce the threat of missiles, but infantry-tank coordination tactics do. [0] For example, the Stryker MGS is a wheeled vehicle carrying a gun. It's widely regarded to suck badly, but in principle there's no reason you couldn't have a good wheeled gun carrier. [1] Also you need infantry to go places tanks can't go and root out defenders, plus actually do the work of holding enemy territory like talking to local leaders, clearing the radio station of hostile DJs, etc
- sorokod 5y ago
  > Well, what would an MBT be replaced with? Don't know, but that is a different question. BTW some/many of the MBT in this war are already equipped with active protection systems e.g Shtora ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora-1 ). See the T-80 and T-90 sections here: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
  - greedo 5y ago
mcguire 5y ago
Tanks have always been vulnerable to cheaper weapons, whether that's an anti-tank gun hidden in rubble or a NLAW. This is why tanks require infantry support---to locate and deal with those threats while the tanks deal with things the infantry cannot. Many of the videos from Ukraine have been ambushes (sort of a separate matter) or of AFVs operating without close infantry support. That's not a good way to do things.
- sorokod 5y ago
  Is your assumption that the Russians do not know that "tanks require infantry support" or just ignore this fact?
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    More likely lack of training, discipline and morale. The Russian armed forces are still prone to inter branch fighting and intra branch infighting between officers. Basically they still operate like the military of some el presidente banana republic. And currently there is no larger than life actually competent field marshal Zhukov like leadership to make all of them fall in line.
dogma1138 5y ago
No. Both the US and Germany bought Trophy, the Dutch bought Iron Fist (another Israeli APS), a few other NATO members are evaluating Trophy and also working on their own APS. So MBTs are going no where, APS would become more common and more important and the doctrine of now not having your tanks alone without infantry and ISR proving support would be even more solidified.
- sorokod 5y ago
  I suppose that by APS you mean hard-kill systems such as Iron Fist and Trophy. As far as I know they are not effective against "top attacks".
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    Both are advertised as being effective against high elevation threats, both Trophy and Iron Fist have been tested against missiles launched from helicopters when during their acceptance testing by the Israelis. Trophy has a +- 38 degrees of elevation firing, Iron Fist can do -40-+60. At least against something like an NLAW that flys above the tank both would have a firing solution. The US when evaluating the system for both the Bradley and the Abrams tested it against the Javelin and other modern anti tank threats. As far as non-western weapon go Trophy has intercepted fairly modern ATGMs like the Russian Kornet-E and it’s licensed Iranian clones which also employ a top-attack attack profile.

ceeplusplus 5y ago

I'm guessing we're going to see more active protection [1] that tries to detonate incoming projectiles at a distance to nullify the effectiveness of shaped charges. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeuVHKc92U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeuVHKc92U

picture 5y ago
Good lord.. While I know about existence of APS especially on Merkava tanks, this video really shows how modern warfare can brush right up against science fiction. We're able to detect an incoming round and automatically kill it with a directed explosion, all faster than you can blink. What, are we going to see munitions that has submunitions of its own to counter the countermeasure next? (That might be a reasonable development actually) Either way I'm fortunate that these things aren't used around me, and I'm not in any danger. I would love to one day see those C-beams glitter, as a spectator in safety
- Someone 5y ago
  > Either way I'm fortunate that these things aren't used around me, and I'm not in any danger. At the 2m20s mark, they claim this leaves personnel 10m away unharmed. So, it seems you can watch from quite nearby. You’d have to avoid being hit by the incoming stuff, though, and I guess wearing hearing protection is strongly advised, too. As to countermeasures, I would guess this doesn’t work well against kinetic energy projectiles that don’t explode but depend on mass and velocity to do damage. Or would it?

cwmma 5y ago

Not really, everybody has known that tanks on their own, unsupported by infantry are incredibly vulnerable to anti-tank missiles since, at least the Yom Kippur War (50 years ago) probably longer. The Russians for various reasons didn't and the results were predictable. So no MBTs aren't obsolete they just are very easy to break if you use them wrong. Also there are newer active protection systems that can defeat missiles like the ones being used, the Russian tanks in the invasion either don't have them or don't have the ones that can detect threats from above.

sorokod 5y ago
Actually Yom Kippur war went well for Israel's armour in the north (Golan Heights), the largest tank battle ever if memory serves. Can you reference the relevant active protection systems?
- cwmma 5y ago
  Re: Yom Kippor in the south is where Egyptian anti tank misses did shocking damage to Israeli tanks which caused a lot of people to predict the imminent death of the MBT 50 years ago. The Russian active protection system is called Arena [1] 1. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arena.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arena.htm
  - sorokod 5y ago
    Looks like a very selective view of the Yom Kippur war given what has happened on the Syrian front and the subsequent development of Israel's own MBT. Can you please share some references to "caused lot of people to predict the imminent death of the MBT 50 years ago" ?
    - cwmma 5y ago
      https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2sparks98.pdf https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2sparks98.pdf https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2015/jan_mar/Elmonairy.html https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201... https://www.baen.com/tanksfuture https://www.baen.com/tanksfuture
      - sorokod 5y ago
        Thanks!
- jdkee 5y ago
  The largest tank battle would be the Battle of Kursk. See https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kursk https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kursk

ranger207 5y ago

Well, what would an MBT be replaced with? You'll still need a vehicle carrying heavy weapons to take out bunkers, enemy vehicles, etc. Maybe you can have an ATGM carrier with a bunch of missiles. But missiles are expensive, so maybe if you fit a specialized fire control system to a gun you can get the same accuracy as a missile but cheaper. That's going to be heavy, so you'll probably want tracks to spread the weight[0]. Then you'll want to protect your big and heavy vehicle too so it can't be killed by say someone with a common RPG-7. And now what do you have? A tank. Certainly things are going to change in the future. Active protection systems (APSs) are going to be basically required, and I wouldn't be surprised if APSs became the main armor. After WWII the effectiveness of HEAT made designers believe armor was ineffective, so many post-war designs sacrificed armor for speed, such as the Leopard 1, so something similar could happen again. But an important part of the equation is tactics. A very similar question to "why do we still need MBTs" is "why do we still need infantry" and the answer is the same: they synergise[1]. Infantry need tanks to blow up hard points, and tanks need infantry to keep an eye on the surroundings, suppress and occupy potential firing points, take buildings to prevent them from being used to fire ATGMs and to use to look out for enemy ATGMs, etc. Infantry itself doesn't do anything to reduce the threat of missiles, but infantry-tank coordination tactics do. [0] For example, the Stryker MGS is a wheeled vehicle carrying a gun. It's widely regarded to suck badly, but in principle there's no reason you couldn't have a good wheeled gun carrier. [1] Also you need infantry to go places tanks can't go and root out defenders, plus actually do the work of holding enemy territory like talking to local leaders, clearing the radio station of hostile DJs, etc

sorokod 5y ago
> Well, what would an MBT be replaced with? Don't know, but that is a different question. BTW some/many of the MBT in this war are already equipped with active protection systems e.g Shtora ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora-1 ). See the T-80 and T-90 sections here: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
- greedo 5y ago

mcguire 5y ago

Tanks have always been vulnerable to cheaper weapons, whether that's an anti-tank gun hidden in rubble or a NLAW. This is why tanks require infantry support---to locate and deal with those threats while the tanks deal with things the infantry cannot. Many of the videos from Ukraine have been ambushes (sort of a separate matter) or of AFVs operating without close infantry support. That's not a good way to do things.

sorokod 5y ago
Is your assumption that the Russians do not know that "tanks require infantry support" or just ignore this fact?
- dogma1138 5y ago
  More likely lack of training, discipline and morale. The Russian armed forces are still prone to inter branch fighting and intra branch infighting between officers. Basically they still operate like the military of some el presidente banana republic. And currently there is no larger than life actually competent field marshal Zhukov like leadership to make all of them fall in line.

dogma1138 5y ago

No. Both the US and Germany bought Trophy, the Dutch bought Iron Fist (another Israeli APS), a few other NATO members are evaluating Trophy and also working on their own APS. So MBTs are going no where, APS would become more common and more important and the doctrine of now not having your tanks alone without infantry and ISR proving support would be even more solidified.

sorokod 5y ago
I suppose that by APS you mean hard-kill systems such as Iron Fist and Trophy. As far as I know they are not effective against "top attacks".
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Both are advertised as being effective against high elevation threats, both Trophy and Iron Fist have been tested against missiles launched from helicopters when during their acceptance testing by the Israelis. Trophy has a +- 38 degrees of elevation firing, Iron Fist can do -40-+60. At least against something like an NLAW that flys above the tank both would have a firing solution. The US when evaluating the system for both the Bradley and the Abrams tested it against the Javelin and other modern anti tank threats. As far as non-western weapon go Trophy has intercepted fairly modern ATGMs like the Russian Kornet-E and it’s licensed Iranian clones which also employ a top-attack attack profile.