17 ms·

The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

111 points by therealchiggs 4y ago

formerly_proven 4y ago
People conclude that tanks (sometimes, armour in general) are obsolete because the most modern anti-tank weapons defeat exactly the 70s tanks they were designed to defeat in the 90s. If anything, when someone makes this point, it tells you they are clueless.
- gonzo41 4y ago
  It's not that simple though, If you fired a a few Javelins against an Abrams with a Trophy system you'd still be at risk from one of the multiple shots over time. And even if the rounds don't cook off, if the EFP goes through the crew compartment, everyone is toast from blast wounds. I think the main gun on an MBT will be replaced by rocket systems on smaller lighter, faster vehicles like the Boxer CRV family. Edit just to add, The secrets out that the idea behind Javelin and NLAW is sound. Expect there to be a proliferation of reasonably cheap weapons in this category being developed and built by everyone.
  - greedo 4y ago
    The secret has been out for 40+ years. The Sagger decimated Israeli tanks in the Sinai in 1973 until the IDF started using combined arms tactics. The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe. The Hellfire (and to a lesser extent, the TOW) dominated Iraq during the Desert Storm, and during the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Javelin itself is almost 30 years old in design. The only reason we're hearing so much talk about the Javelin/NLAW is because of cheap cellphone videos capturing so much of the war in Ukraine. (And extremely poor Russian tactics...)
    - hef19898 4y ago
      >> The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe That's what I call over simplification.
      - greedo 4y ago
        Yes, because conflicts between superpowers can be easily summed up in a HN post. The point is that modern, competent armies have been preparing to counter the ATGM threat for over half a century.
        hef19898 4y ago
        You can't sum up highly complex topics in one sentence? Shit! ;-) On a more serious note, I would have counted the Russians in the group of competent armies. Maybe they were during the cold war, Afghanistan is not really a good measure. Maybe they were not, no way to ever find out. All being said, I'm happy that we never found out so far. Because one thing is sure, finding out involves turning whatever region is used to find out into a war zone.
        greedo 4y ago
        I grew up a military brat, and have studied this shit for years. While I never thought the Russians (or Soviets) were 10ft tall, I never in a million years thought they would be this utterly incompetent. I have some Estonian friends who were concerned about Russia steamrolling them before NATO could really respond (they joke that Russia considers Estonia a suburb of St. Petersburg). And I always empathized with them. No strategic depth, minimal forces, ethnic Russians in the Baltics who could be used by Putin as a casus belli. And NATO seemed sclerotic and weak. Now? I think that NATO could easily handle almost anything Russia could throw at it, short of nukes. It really is amazing how poorly they've performed. And the BTG concept has been utterly disproven as a brittle, unsustainable force.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    I don't think you get much sustainability using guided rocket systems. You need something to shoot at suspected targets in bushes, windows and stuff and expensive rockets wont do. You will run out of them. Dumb ammo is plenty.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  The Russian tank with the most losses in Ukraine is the T-72B3 obr.2016. This is the most recent variant of the T-72 that the Russians use (and started production in 2016) and has the same armour as the T-90MS which started production in 2017. The only more advanced tank Russia has is the T-14, but it likely has less then 20 of those and due to the sanctions wont be able to make anymore, so its unlikely to be fielded in Ukraine.
- greedo 4y ago
  While the names of the Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine sound like the gear we grew up fearing during the Cold War (T-72/T-80 etc), they really aren't the same anymore than the M1 is still the same as first deployed in 1980. For example, the T-72B3M Obr. 2016 is a thoroughly modern tank, though obviously based on the T-72. Modern fire-control, modern vision equipment, solid ERA, good cannon. Where it is failing is in how it's being used, even ignoring the lack of appropriate infantry/artillery support. This is a tank that has thermal day/night sights (not IR spotlights). It should be able to see someone lurking with an NLAW or RPG, but they are continually being sniped. So why? Well, perhaps the thermal sights suck, or were stripped out at depot by some corrupt quartermaster. Or perhaps the crews are so poorly trained they can't take advantage of them. Or perhaps a lot of the ATGM kills we see are abandoned vehicles that are just getting destroyed. Also, during the 2014 Donbass war, the UA lost roughly 400 MBTs, the majority of which were lost to mortars and artillery, not ATGMs. We see the videos of the Javelin/NlAW strikes, but we don't see hardly as much artillery. Artillery is the king of war... Most of this we won't know until the conflict has quieted down, and after action reports are gathered. Tanks aren't obsolete by any means, but the reasons for the high losses are multivariate, a nd not due to old armor being destroyed by "modern" (30 year old Javelin) anti-tank weapons.
jdougan 4y ago
Good essay. I would like to have seen a little history of Soviet/Pact/Russian thought besides American and Israeli. After all the Soviet Army was probably the most all in on tanks in the Cold War.
cm2187 4y ago
On that topic: why Russian tanks are so vulnerable to these missiles and explode spectacularly [1]. Basically the canon auto-loads shells, and the shell storage is not in a different compartment than the turret. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do-russian-tanks-explode-violently-when-hit/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do...
- Kuinox 4y ago
  Most of the tanks always store a dozen of rounds in the turret for faster reloads.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    > a dozen of rounds This made me happy. :) (In Russian, numeric determiners 2-4 place the noun in genitive singular and numeric determiners 5+ place the noun in genitive plural. One book, two of book, three of book, four of book, five of books.)
    - smcl 4y ago
      Czech is exactly the same - jedno pivo, dvě piva, tří piva, čtyří piva, pět piv, šest piv etc ...
  - patleeman 4y ago
    The American Bradley stores rounds in a separate armored compartment behind the loader. If the compartment gets hit and the rounds cook off, the blast is redirected out the top of the tank away from the crew compartment which makes the vehicle much more survivable.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      Don't you mean the Abrams tank? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley: "The use of aluminum armor and the storage of large quantities of ammunition in the vehicle initially raised questions about its combat survivability." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams: "The M1 Abrams...introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blow-out compartment"
SQL2219 4y ago
now you know why the USMC got rid of all their tanks about 2 years ago.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Because they rely on the army for heavy tanks and focus their resources on other platforms.
  - baybal2 4y ago
    No, it's because they need money for new tactical missiles, and standoff weapons. And because US marines conceded on the idea of fighting China amphibiously. Honestly, the idea to take, and hold those tiny islandlets in the South Sea by force landing is ridiculous. ---- No tank, or just anything will "live" if being sent into a know killbox, and Russians keep doing that repeatedly. This is what's happening in Ukraine now. Literally this: a clueless battalion sized force wades into a killbox, gets annihilated to last few men, next day, another battalion is sent to exactly the same spot... Russians could've easily lost as much with modern, or other kind of military hardware than tanks. Most Russian tanks were disabled by artillery, and missiles, not in tank vs. tank battles. No tank in the world would survive a 40kg missile, or an artillery shell hitting its roof. So, the quality of hardware is irrelevant. Most of Russian military hardware losses are not from battles, but from soldiers routing, and abandoning their vehicles, which are LATER destroyed, or captured. What is really telling is extremely low quality is the Russian military leadership. The key here is to understand that losses do not come from 40kg missiles themselves, but from Russian generals knowingly sending their troops into ATGM, and artillery killboxes, and from Russian troops knowing their generals intentions, and acting accordingly (routing upon first battle damage) ---- In the context of above, it's very clear that amphibious landing in the age of satellite reconnaissance, infrared optics, 100km artillery projectiles, and antiship missiles is not a smart way to wage war today
  - notakio 4y ago
    Rah. USMC austerity is fundamental to the corps, from what is supplied to individual Marines, all the way up to expenditures on larger tactical equipment, with the notable exception of the Osprey.
bobowzki 4y ago
Something I've been thinking about is that with the emergence of weapons like the NLAW and Javelin, the Secret Service probably will have to rethink the security of the US president.
- newsclues 4y ago
  IDF Trophy or similar systems work… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
  - WJW 4y ago
    Trophy and similar weapons work by sending a cloud shard of metal shards in the direction of the target. Given that a presidential convoy will often be in the presence of large amounts of civilians, using active defense system may mean shredding a couple dozen voters (possibly on live television). I can't imagine many politicians being very happy about that. I think DIY weapons would be the more dangerous threat btw. A sharpened stick on one of those racing drones could rest on top of (say) a small shack until the target comes by, then strike extremely quickly.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      I don’t think politicians will really care about staying alive from an attack even if a few bystanders die from the countermeasures.
      - WJW 4y ago
        It's not so much for when it actually happens, but publicly driving around in a car that will kill bystanders when attacked is still a no-no from a PR perspective. Just imagine how many attack ads you could create off that one thing alone.
- h2odragon 4y ago
  No need for heavy weapons, a pistol or a rifle and a picked time will still get you a decent shot at anyone in government. It's almost as if they're not actually scared of the population they live with. Its not like the President / etc are actually all that important. The Government is more than them, and will live on and continue doing the objectionable stuff regardless.
zteppenwolf 4y ago
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... > This bs from western media has no commitment to truth Western media tends to use Ukrainian claims, generally saying so.
  - zteppenwolf 4y ago
    - oriolid 4y ago
      > That is an interesting approach, but I'm looking also for a statement from the Russian forces. Search for "Pravda in English" and you'll find it. It may seem a bit detached from reality and insulting to anyone's intelligence but unlike Internet in Russia it's not censored.
    - mcv 4y ago
      That's more the state of Russian media. They're not even allowed to call this a war. Obviously Ukrainian news is also biased, but so far, it seems to be a lot more rooted in truth than anything from the Russian media. And Ukrainians do excel at grassroots propaganda in ways nobody in the west has ever done. But many western media seem to be doing a pretty good job of distilling the truth from these reports. Not all obviously, but good journalism absolutely does exist.
- ajross 4y ago
  There are plenty of independent folks doing great work analyzing (and in many cases geolocating) photos of equipment losses. Oryx is great: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... Basically yes: this war has been a disaster for Russian armor.
csours 4y ago
Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q Chieftain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 Bernard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY Extreme summary, blame me if I missed something obviously important - unsupported tanks will die to infantry or artillery and have done so since shortly after the inception of the tank. Tanks are actually pretty cheap compared to replacing a human, it costs quite a lot to raise a modern human. The tank role still exists, but ratios of tanks to other fighting vehicles may change.
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support. A single soldier with an ATGM can take out a tank, but a single soldier with a gun can take out that single soldier and their ATGM. It's easy to forget that reality isn't a third-person shooter. When you're sitting in a steel box with an engine in the back and a cannon on the top, situational awareness will inevitably suffer to some degree, and no amount of cameras will completely offset that.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support Do you now what's funny? Even RTS videogames like the Command and Conquer series or Star-Craft made this point clear early in our childhoods. Tanks will be eaten alive by hoards of cheap disposable units, so you always had to support them with anti-infantry units if you wanted them to be useful in battle.
    - metadat 4y ago
      Yes, the Warcraft II and III tank units get scrapped real quick if you don't protect them!
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      In the modern day, humans are not necessarily "cheap disposable units." At least for the US, it is not politically feasible to have 50,000-100,000 people die in a war anymore. 4,431 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. The calculus has changed and now dollars are cheaper than lives.
Ambolia 4y ago
It will be interesting times if all those weapons spill into the European Union.
- pjc50 4y ago
  And how and why would that happen?
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Look at the former Yugoslavian countries. The German right-wing terror group "NSU" is suspected to have used weapons from that area [1], the Charlie Hebdo and Paris terrorists did the same [2]. It is entirely reasonable that, similar to the aftermath of the 90s wars, weapons from Ukraine will turn up in every major conflict zone - especially because the current supply from the Balkan is all 30 years old decrepit shit, whereas Ukraine (rightfully) got the very best of the best of Western weaponry. [1] https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nsu-prozess-gericht-will-herkunft-der-waffen-klaren-1.4992460 https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nsu-prozess-gericht-will-he... [2] https://www.dw.com/de/waffenlager-balkan-kalaschnikow-300-euro/a-18895804 https://www.dw.com/de/waffenlager-balkan-kalaschnikow-300-eu...
    - hef19898 4y ago
      The stuff the NSU was using can be bought either at Munich main train station (if you know who and how to ask) or just across the Polish border. They used a single Makarov, mostly. And those were basically available for a 5 DM back when the Soviets retreated from the former DDR.
  - Markoff 4y ago
    one of the most corrupt goverments in Europe with their leader known corrupt politician Zelensky, see Pandora papers https://www.rferl.org/a/pandora-papers-tax-havens/31490744.html https://www.rferl.org/a/pandora-papers-tax-havens/31490744.h... there is no reason to assume weaponry will be somehow excluded from their corrupted business operations
pirate787 4y ago
The truly obsolete weapons platform is the $1.2 trillion manned F-35 program. A multi-role fighter that is too expensive to fly in this new combat space and cannot survive the multitude of anti-air missiles. The drone air war is a numbers game and unmanned fighters are both cheaper and have better operational specs.
- zip1234 4y ago
  F-35 would do exceptionally well in this conflict. It is designed for contested airspace.
  - swader999 4y ago
    Let's hope we don't find out for real.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Yep and useless in the north, where the actual closest borders with Russia are.
  - hoseja 4y ago
    Haha don't tell me it can't fly in the cold or something.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Can't land on a gravel strip
    - zip1234 4y ago
      The US has 2 squadrons of F-35s in Alaska.
      - juki 4y ago
        Finland also just recently signed a deal for 64 F35s after several years of research and comparing alternatives. I'm fairly confident that if there was some significant problem, they would have picked something else.
mothsonasloth 4y ago
<armchair_opinion meta="some non-combat reserve experience"> I think we will see the tanks in future battlefields still but rather than cannons they will be using more electronic warfare and will be providing indirect fire with "smart" weapons. Essentially they will be multi role armoured vehicles with high manoeuvrability e.g. (British Ajax Scout Vehicle) Or my sci-fi'ish theory of a "drone tank" Why? * Governments have high demands from defence and at the same time want low costs. * Military doesn't want an infantryman any more; they want a soldier who can perform several other roles. Same goes for vehicles. * The concept of modular vehicles with the same chassis is becoming popular. * Everyone who was taught or believed cold war military tactics is retiring or will be soon. So new doctrines will emerge. <armchair_opinion/>
- ape4 4y ago
  Yup drone vs drone seems like the future.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Reinforcement Learning will shine. From starcraft, even with all the handicaps, AlphaStar was capable of out maneuvering and outdoing humans in micro(management) without breaking a sweat! Now remove those limitations and let the stuff run on the hardware the US military has access to and you have a truly lethal swarm.
- thinkmassive 4y ago
  Battlebots: Electronic Warfare edition! The ultimate faraday cage match, where swarms of autonomous surface and air vehicles jam, cook, and subvert the circuits of the opposition into oblivion
- wefarrell 4y ago
  Considering drones are more expendable than humans we're more likely to see high volume swarms of low cost, lightly armored drones. Armor will likely be reserved for any humans who need to be in close proximity to the firefight.
- 4y ago
hef19898 4y ago
>> The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver. Doctrine and training are paramount, together with command and control that's what enabled the early German successes in WW1. And in the case of France a ton of luck. The article asks the right question: is the role of the tank still needed? A Javelin neutralizes a tank, under the right conditions, it doesn't replace it.
- zip1234 4y ago
  I saw some tanker on twitter explaining just how bad the Russian tactics with their tanks are. Poor training, poor logistics, and undermanned. Tanks get such poor gas mileage that they need tons of support. Extremely effective weapons when used properly but clearly Russia is not doing that.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Thr Turkish army lost a couple of top of the line Leopard 2s in Syria some years ago for the exact same reason: lack of infantry support. Seems that the "West", spearheaded by the US, has the most experienced military in the world at the moment. 20 years of counter insurgency warfare and some more conventional wars before that seriously helped a lot. Just how much is at display in Ukraine, first by the, so far, Russian failures and second by the preparation and performance of the Ukrainians, which where supported, cinsulted and equiped by NATO for years by now.
    - fork1 4y ago
      There is an issue with that, being efficient in conter insurgency warfare doesn't necessarily translate into High Intensity warfare. Infantry support for armor is one, but things like maneuvers, operating under contested skies, EW, etc. When were NATO troops under heavy sustained artillery barrages? I m quite impressed by the attrition in both troops, ammo, and material. More than Wunderwaffen, i think the lesson is more in trained personel reserves, as well as stockpiles.
    - throwmeariver1 4y ago
k__ 4y ago
It's a bit like with the knights armor and the invention of the gun powder.
- swader999 4y ago
  Or the stirrup before this.
bjourne 4y ago
I think the article should have mentioned the first Gulf war too. There US attack helicopters more or less obliterated the Iraqi tank-based army.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  Only works against an unsophisticated enemy that has no MANPADS. Helicopters are way more vulnerable than tanks.
simonh 4y ago
The tank isn't dead because armies still need the capabilities the tank gives them. You need a long range direct fire weapon, capable of engaging armoured targets and infantry (canister or airburst rounds), with rapid engagement of multiple targets, low time to target, rapid reloads and follow up shots, and high survivability. Lighter wheeled gun armed vehicles can be cheaper, but they don't have the survivability. They also can't go everywhere a tracked tank can go, such as jungle busting or just driving right through many kinds of buildings or cover. Missile have much longer flight times to target than gun rounds. A tank can move into position, fire, destroy it's target and be back in cover before a missile gets anywhere near it's target. The missiles are also vastly more expensive than tank rounds. Yes tanks are vulnerable when not properly integrated with air support, artillery and infantry. They're still a lot more survivable than pretty much anything else that can provide the same capabilities though. One tank in the second Gulf War shrugged off 14 RPG hits, and overall tanks in that conflict amply proved their value, when used effectively.
- irrational 4y ago
  But, this doesn’t address his points from the end of the article about cheap drone swarm attacks on the top side of tanks.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Or on the top side of infantry. I'd still rather be in a tank. What this tells me is we need better anti-drone air defences.
  - nimbius 4y ago
    s/drones/air support/ imho the failures observed caused by manpad in the ukrane theatre were directly attributable to an almost comically poor systems integration on the part of the aggressor and an unwillingness to commit longer range artillery and missile strikes to soften what were hardened infantry targets equipped with sixth generation anti-air and anti-tank weaponry.
    - lumost 4y ago
inglor 4y ago
Lots of outdated information here. I served in the IDF on something related and (obviously) can't disclose anything of military importance but do you really think for the last 16 years tank armor hasn't gotten (much) better to deal with these threats? Do you (honestly) believe the US doesn't have tank armor that can withstand a (from the top) hit from a Javelin? The tank is not dead (well, not any more than large tank charges are probably dead and ww2 style combat is dead? We likely won't see anything like in desert storm or the Yom Kippur war again).
- Pelic4n 4y ago
  >Do you (honestly) believe the US doesn't have tank armor that can withstand a (from the top) hit from a Javelin? If this exists, why did the USMC binned their tanks 2 years ago stating they weren't cost-effective anymore? I'll believe this exists when I'll see it, but so far we have seen $4M tanks defeated by $100K javelins with a 93% kill rate, and so far cope cages have done nothing against them.
  - inglor 4y ago
    I did not work for the USMC and the strategic goals of the IDF (land defense, small area) are very different so I can't answer for sure. In many modern battle scenarios (specifically urban warfare scenarios) tanks aren't of much use so I totally see binning them in favor of better combined arms. Also again: you are taking Russian armor survivability as proof for US armor survivability against the same threat. I totally get if you take my comments here with a (big) grain of salt because I can't provide citations and I'm not making any direct claims about US armor survivability against Javelins (and you'll note you won't find any videos/info online about that because of classification).
  - simonh 4y ago
    The USMC had become a second land army, and decided they needed a mission and set of capabilities of their own. They've pivoted to facing off against China in the Pacific theatre and decided that tanks just don't fit into their requirements for that mission. If they do need tank support, the army has plenty.
  - 4y ago
SEJeff 4y ago
Is it really though? There are some really good active protection systems like Israel's TROPHY which do a pretty good job taking out incoming sabot style (tank shell, javelin, RPG) warheads. The modern incarnation[1] (M1A2 SEPv2) of the US Abrams tanks all have it [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) [2] https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-tank/ https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-t...
- greesil 4y ago
  No way it can take out sabot rounds. It's got to much kinetic energy and moves much faster than an ATGM
  - hef19898 4y ago
    And SABOTs are usually fired from other tanks, so...
  - SEJeff 4y ago
    A sabot round is really two parts, right? You have the shaped charge that blows up exterior armor and then a small penetrator, generally the size and shape roughly of a pencil, that goes in and makes a tiny hole. Active protection systems like Trophy are designed to pre-detonate that shaped charge so that they actual sabot penetrator just bounces off the normal armor, or is hit by ERA (explosive reactive armor). I'm sure APS work better against most ATGMs than sabots, but fundamentally, many of them are designed similarly. Sans maybe there are no depleted uranium ATGMs.
    - sushibowl 4y ago
      modern APFSDS rounds work purely through kinetic energy penetration and don't contain any explosive charge. The penetrator is usually around an inch in diameter, and maybe 30 inches long. I doubt Trophy can target these rounds effectively since velocity is just too high, something like mach 5 (compared to a javelin's paltry 140 m/s).
exabrial 4y ago
The way _Russia_ uses tanks has been dead... basically since 1972 and the advent of the A10. Here a $23 munition, fired quickly, could chew up an armor column. Don't forget the Javelin is still $250k, it's not exactly cheap. Tanks must be supported by infantry teams. Without capable mortar teams, rifle teams, automatic weapons teams, they are sitting ducks, as Russia has proven.
- chernevik 4y ago
  The A10 probably couldn't survive in the Ukraine airwar environment.
  - greedo 4y ago
    Nope. Maybe slightly better than the SU-25s have, and Maverick etc might make them able to stand off a bit from all the manpads, but the A-10 would be an easy kill for any fighters/SAMS.
  - exabrial 4y ago
    Of course, you wouldn't send an A10 without uncontested airspace, you would send F35s first.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
You still need something to move troops though, this just means that every tank will soon have lasers to target and destroy missiles fired at it.
rozab 4y ago
I think this article downplays the ludicrous effectiveness of anti-tank weapons in ww2. https://youtu.be/QPJRd_XiDGg https://youtu.be/QPJRd_XiDGg Tanks have always been vulnerable to very cheap infrantry weapons if used badly.
throwawayffffas 4y ago
The gist of the article which I agree a lot seems to be. Nothing has significantly changed since the 80s-90s, ATGMs have gotten better but they were still a huge problem back then and the solution seems to be the same, better recon, more artillery. Drones don't represent something new but really precision strikes at a discount, capabilities only available to major powers once are now "buy off the shelf". The TB-2 with a couple of MAM missiles does the same job as an f4 with a couple of walleyes. The only difference being the f4 cost 2 million dollars in 1965 while the TB-2 costs 2 million dollars now.
- greedo 4y ago
  Not even $2M. Have you seen the footage of the UA/TDF using civilian quadrotor drones to drop anti-tank hand grenades on vehicles? As long as the radio spectrum is open, these type of attacks will be very hard to stop.
  - lakis 4y ago
    anti-tank hand grenades are obsolete. The only use is to somehow get them to detonate under the tank and pray it will do something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade At best they are used not against tanks but against light armored vehicles like "Humvees, Strykers and MRAPs " without any armor upgrades
    - greedo 4y ago
      Tell that to the tanks being destroyed as I described. These drones are dropping RKG-1600 grenades on to the top of Russia's top tanks and destroying them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMWHTVLWo2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMWHTVLWo2E Wikipedia is not always a good source for military information, FYI... https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/grenades/rkg-1600-hand-grenade https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/grenades/rkg-1600-hand...
S_A_P 4y ago
The tank is now an unmanned flying drone- so it is just a change of form factor.
chernevik 4y ago
I don't think the article pays enough attention to drones. It does mention their importance, and the possibility that they will do away with armor altogether -- and then says, "well, we don't yet know if that's right, so tanks are probably still important." Seems to me that whether or not that is right is the big question.
kkfx 4y ago
Modern war is no longer military show, resemble more criminal-based guerrilla. Traditional military technique can work or not much depending on combatant motivation more than mere material superiority. Given that modern war should be centered toward war crimes, witch means using civilian stuff to disguise forces, mass kill people with poisoned water without damaging significantly the infra, use and abuse modern IT crap vulnerabilities do disable infra (like electric grid, connected vehicles etc) without physical damage, spread disinformation with the best possible ability etc. That's why, for instance, in Ukraine Russia can't really arrive to a quick victory. Such immoral and criminal pattern is nothing new: WWI was a combat between armies, civilians are evacuated before combats, non-combatant on the front line was a bit respected etc, WWII change the game hitting civilians without any morale, hitting ambulances, putting military in hospitals etc. Now we do not even use State's official army preferring mercenaries with formally no flag and no code of conduct, engaging rule: "do what you want but win". In such scenario try to be civil is not doable, the sole option is show equal behaviors, not encouraging criminals and violence per se, but mastering it to crush enemy forces and push civilians of all sides against the combatant because being unable to distinguish between them any unknown human being can be an enemy so a legit target for all sides. Reaching such level of brutality means creating just bloodbaths where public opinion will rise at a certain point against the war itself. At that point no gear will work, the force of the crowd could not be stopped. That's the modern strategy no one admit of course, but many practice shamefully.
jcmontx 4y ago
> The 1967 Arab-Israeli War was the first conflict since World War II that saw the large-scale employment of tank formations on a mobile battlefield Anyone with a mild knowledge of history knows about the huge tank battle that took place between India and Pakistan in 1965. Hard to take the article without any reference to that conflict.

111 points by therealchiggs 4y ago

People conclude that tanks (sometimes, armour in general) are obsolete because the most modern anti-tank weapons defeat exactly the 70s tanks they were designed to defeat in the 90s. If anything, when someone makes this point, it tells you they are clueless.

gonzo41 4y ago
It's not that simple though, If you fired a a few Javelins against an Abrams with a Trophy system you'd still be at risk from one of the multiple shots over time. And even if the rounds don't cook off, if the EFP goes through the crew compartment, everyone is toast from blast wounds. I think the main gun on an MBT will be replaced by rocket systems on smaller lighter, faster vehicles like the Boxer CRV family. Edit just to add, The secrets out that the idea behind Javelin and NLAW is sound. Expect there to be a proliferation of reasonably cheap weapons in this category being developed and built by everyone.
- greedo 4y ago
  The secret has been out for 40+ years. The Sagger decimated Israeli tanks in the Sinai in 1973 until the IDF started using combined arms tactics. The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe. The Hellfire (and to a lesser extent, the TOW) dominated Iraq during the Desert Storm, and during the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Javelin itself is almost 30 years old in design. The only reason we're hearing so much talk about the Javelin/NLAW is because of cheap cellphone videos capturing so much of the war in Ukraine. (And extremely poor Russian tactics...)
  - hef19898 4y ago
    >> The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe That's what I call over simplification.
    - greedo 4y ago
      Yes, because conflicts between superpowers can be easily summed up in a HN post. The point is that modern, competent armies have been preparing to counter the ATGM threat for over half a century.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        You can't sum up highly complex topics in one sentence? Shit! ;-) On a more serious note, I would have counted the Russians in the group of competent armies. Maybe they were during the cold war, Afghanistan is not really a good measure. Maybe they were not, no way to ever find out. All being said, I'm happy that we never found out so far. Because one thing is sure, finding out involves turning whatever region is used to find out into a war zone.
        greedo 4y ago
        I grew up a military brat, and have studied this shit for years. While I never thought the Russians (or Soviets) were 10ft tall, I never in a million years thought they would be this utterly incompetent. I have some Estonian friends who were concerned about Russia steamrolling them before NATO could really respond (they joke that Russia considers Estonia a suburb of St. Petersburg). And I always empathized with them. No strategic depth, minimal forces, ethnic Russians in the Baltics who could be used by Putin as a casus belli. And NATO seemed sclerotic and weak. Now? I think that NATO could easily handle almost anything Russia could throw at it, short of nukes. It really is amazing how poorly they've performed. And the BTG concept has been utterly disproven as a brittle, unsustainable force.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  I don't think you get much sustainability using guided rocket systems. You need something to shoot at suspected targets in bushes, windows and stuff and expensive rockets wont do. You will run out of them. Dumb ammo is plenty.
_kbh_ 4y ago
The Russian tank with the most losses in Ukraine is the T-72B3 obr.2016. This is the most recent variant of the T-72 that the Russians use (and started production in 2016) and has the same armour as the T-90MS which started production in 2017. The only more advanced tank Russia has is the T-14, but it likely has less then 20 of those and due to the sanctions wont be able to make anymore, so its unlikely to be fielded in Ukraine.
greedo 4y ago
While the names of the Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine sound like the gear we grew up fearing during the Cold War (T-72/T-80 etc), they really aren't the same anymore than the M1 is still the same as first deployed in 1980. For example, the T-72B3M Obr. 2016 is a thoroughly modern tank, though obviously based on the T-72. Modern fire-control, modern vision equipment, solid ERA, good cannon. Where it is failing is in how it's being used, even ignoring the lack of appropriate infantry/artillery support. This is a tank that has thermal day/night sights (not IR spotlights). It should be able to see someone lurking with an NLAW or RPG, but they are continually being sniped. So why? Well, perhaps the thermal sights suck, or were stripped out at depot by some corrupt quartermaster. Or perhaps the crews are so poorly trained they can't take advantage of them. Or perhaps a lot of the ATGM kills we see are abandoned vehicles that are just getting destroyed. Also, during the 2014 Donbass war, the UA lost roughly 400 MBTs, the majority of which were lost to mortars and artillery, not ATGMs. We see the videos of the Javelin/NlAW strikes, but we don't see hardly as much artillery. Artillery is the king of war... Most of this we won't know until the conflict has quieted down, and after action reports are gathered. Tanks aren't obsolete by any means, but the reasons for the high losses are multivariate, a nd not due to old armor being destroyed by "modern" (30 year old Javelin) anti-tank weapons.

jdougan 4y ago

Good essay. I would like to have seen a little history of Soviet/Pact/Russian thought besides American and Israeli. After all the Soviet Army was probably the most all in on tanks in the Cold War.

cm2187 4y ago

On that topic: why Russian tanks are so vulnerable to these missiles and explode spectacularly [1]. Basically the canon auto-loads shells, and the shell storage is not in a different compartment than the turret. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do-russian-tanks-explode-violently-when-hit/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do...

Kuinox 4y ago
Most of the tanks always store a dozen of rounds in the turret for faster reloads.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  > a dozen of rounds This made me happy. :) (In Russian, numeric determiners 2-4 place the noun in genitive singular and numeric determiners 5+ place the noun in genitive plural. One book, two of book, three of book, four of book, five of books.)
  - smcl 4y ago
    Czech is exactly the same - jedno pivo, dvě piva, tří piva, čtyří piva, pět piv, šest piv etc ...
- patleeman 4y ago
  The American Bradley stores rounds in a separate armored compartment behind the loader. If the compartment gets hit and the rounds cook off, the blast is redirected out the top of the tank away from the crew compartment which makes the vehicle much more survivable.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    Don't you mean the Abrams tank? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley: "The use of aluminum armor and the storage of large quantities of ammunition in the vehicle initially raised questions about its combat survivability." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams: "The M1 Abrams...introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blow-out compartment"

SQL2219 4y ago

now you know why the USMC got rid of all their tanks about 2 years ago.

newsclues 4y ago
Because they rely on the army for heavy tanks and focus their resources on other platforms.
- baybal2 4y ago
  No, it's because they need money for new tactical missiles, and standoff weapons. And because US marines conceded on the idea of fighting China amphibiously. Honestly, the idea to take, and hold those tiny islandlets in the South Sea by force landing is ridiculous. ---- No tank, or just anything will "live" if being sent into a know killbox, and Russians keep doing that repeatedly. This is what's happening in Ukraine now. Literally this: a clueless battalion sized force wades into a killbox, gets annihilated to last few men, next day, another battalion is sent to exactly the same spot... Russians could've easily lost as much with modern, or other kind of military hardware than tanks. Most Russian tanks were disabled by artillery, and missiles, not in tank vs. tank battles. No tank in the world would survive a 40kg missile, or an artillery shell hitting its roof. So, the quality of hardware is irrelevant. Most of Russian military hardware losses are not from battles, but from soldiers routing, and abandoning their vehicles, which are LATER destroyed, or captured. What is really telling is extremely low quality is the Russian military leadership. The key here is to understand that losses do not come from 40kg missiles themselves, but from Russian generals knowingly sending their troops into ATGM, and artillery killboxes, and from Russian troops knowing their generals intentions, and acting accordingly (routing upon first battle damage) ---- In the context of above, it's very clear that amphibious landing in the age of satellite reconnaissance, infrared optics, 100km artillery projectiles, and antiship missiles is not a smart way to wage war today
- notakio 4y ago
  Rah. USMC austerity is fundamental to the corps, from what is supplied to individual Marines, all the way up to expenditures on larger tactical equipment, with the notable exception of the Osprey.

bobowzki 4y ago

Something I've been thinking about is that with the emergence of weapons like the NLAW and Javelin, the Secret Service probably will have to rethink the security of the US president.

newsclues 4y ago
IDF Trophy or similar systems work… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
- WJW 4y ago
  Trophy and similar weapons work by sending a cloud shard of metal shards in the direction of the target. Given that a presidential convoy will often be in the presence of large amounts of civilians, using active defense system may mean shredding a couple dozen voters (possibly on live television). I can't imagine many politicians being very happy about that. I think DIY weapons would be the more dangerous threat btw. A sharpened stick on one of those racing drones could rest on top of (say) a small shack until the target comes by, then strike extremely quickly.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    I don’t think politicians will really care about staying alive from an attack even if a few bystanders die from the countermeasures.
    - WJW 4y ago
      It's not so much for when it actually happens, but publicly driving around in a car that will kill bystanders when attacked is still a no-no from a PR perspective. Just imagine how many attack ads you could create off that one thing alone.
h2odragon 4y ago
No need for heavy weapons, a pistol or a rifle and a picked time will still get you a decent shot at anyone in government. It's almost as if they're not actually scared of the population they live with. Its not like the President / etc are actually all that important. The Government is more than them, and will live on and continue doing the objectionable stuff regardless.

zteppenwolf 4y ago

formerly_proven 4y ago
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... > This bs from western media has no commitment to truth Western media tends to use Ukrainian claims, generally saying so.
- zteppenwolf 4y ago
  - oriolid 4y ago
    > That is an interesting approach, but I'm looking also for a statement from the Russian forces. Search for "Pravda in English" and you'll find it. It may seem a bit detached from reality and insulting to anyone's intelligence but unlike Internet in Russia it's not censored.
  - mcv 4y ago
    That's more the state of Russian media. They're not even allowed to call this a war. Obviously Ukrainian news is also biased, but so far, it seems to be a lot more rooted in truth than anything from the Russian media. And Ukrainians do excel at grassroots propaganda in ways nobody in the west has ever done. But many western media seem to be doing a pretty good job of distilling the truth from these reports. Not all obviously, but good journalism absolutely does exist.
ajross 4y ago
There are plenty of independent folks doing great work analyzing (and in many cases geolocating) photos of equipment losses. Oryx is great: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... Basically yes: this war has been a disaster for Russian armor.

csours 4y ago

Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q Chieftain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 Bernard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY Extreme summary, blame me if I missed something obviously important - unsupported tanks will die to infantry or artillery and have done so since shortly after the inception of the tank. Tanks are actually pretty cheap compared to replacing a human, it costs quite a lot to raise a modern human. The tank role still exists, but ratios of tanks to other fighting vehicles may change.

DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support. A single soldier with an ATGM can take out a tank, but a single soldier with a gun can take out that single soldier and their ATGM. It's easy to forget that reality isn't a third-person shooter. When you're sitting in a steel box with an engine in the back and a cannon on the top, situational awareness will inevitably suffer to some degree, and no amount of cameras will completely offset that.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support Do you now what's funny? Even RTS videogames like the Command and Conquer series or Star-Craft made this point clear early in our childhoods. Tanks will be eaten alive by hoards of cheap disposable units, so you always had to support them with anti-infantry units if you wanted them to be useful in battle.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Yes, the Warcraft II and III tank units get scrapped real quick if you don't protect them!
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    In the modern day, humans are not necessarily "cheap disposable units." At least for the US, it is not politically feasible to have 50,000-100,000 people die in a war anymore. 4,431 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. The calculus has changed and now dollars are cheaper than lives.

Ambolia 4y ago

It will be interesting times if all those weapons spill into the European Union.

pjc50 4y ago
And how and why would that happen?
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Look at the former Yugoslavian countries. The German right-wing terror group "NSU" is suspected to have used weapons from that area [1], the Charlie Hebdo and Paris terrorists did the same [2]. It is entirely reasonable that, similar to the aftermath of the 90s wars, weapons from Ukraine will turn up in every major conflict zone - especially because the current supply from the Balkan is all 30 years old decrepit shit, whereas Ukraine (rightfully) got the very best of the best of Western weaponry. [1] https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nsu-prozess-gericht-will-herkunft-der-waffen-klaren-1.4992460 https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nsu-prozess-gericht-will-he... [2] https://www.dw.com/de/waffenlager-balkan-kalaschnikow-300-euro/a-18895804 https://www.dw.com/de/waffenlager-balkan-kalaschnikow-300-eu...
  - hef19898 4y ago
    The stuff the NSU was using can be bought either at Munich main train station (if you know who and how to ask) or just across the Polish border. They used a single Makarov, mostly. And those were basically available for a 5 DM back when the Soviets retreated from the former DDR.
- Markoff 4y ago
  one of the most corrupt goverments in Europe with their leader known corrupt politician Zelensky, see Pandora papers https://www.rferl.org/a/pandora-papers-tax-havens/31490744.html https://www.rferl.org/a/pandora-papers-tax-havens/31490744.h... there is no reason to assume weaponry will be somehow excluded from their corrupted business operations

pirate787 4y ago

The truly obsolete weapons platform is the $1.2 trillion manned F-35 program. A multi-role fighter that is too expensive to fly in this new combat space and cannot survive the multitude of anti-air missiles. The drone air war is a numbers game and unmanned fighters are both cheaper and have better operational specs.

zip1234 4y ago
F-35 would do exceptionally well in this conflict. It is designed for contested airspace.
- swader999 4y ago
  Let's hope we don't find out for real.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Yep and useless in the north, where the actual closest borders with Russia are.
- hoseja 4y ago
  Haha don't tell me it can't fly in the cold or something.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Can't land on a gravel strip
  - zip1234 4y ago
    The US has 2 squadrons of F-35s in Alaska.
    - juki 4y ago
      Finland also just recently signed a deal for 64 F35s after several years of research and comparing alternatives. I'm fairly confident that if there was some significant problem, they would have picked something else.

mothsonasloth 4y ago

<armchair_opinion meta="some non-combat reserve experience"> I think we will see the tanks in future battlefields still but rather than cannons they will be using more electronic warfare and will be providing indirect fire with "smart" weapons. Essentially they will be multi role armoured vehicles with high manoeuvrability e.g. (British Ajax Scout Vehicle) Or my sci-fi'ish theory of a "drone tank" Why? * Governments have high demands from defence and at the same time want low costs. * Military doesn't want an infantryman any more; they want a soldier who can perform several other roles. Same goes for vehicles. * The concept of modular vehicles with the same chassis is becoming popular. * Everyone who was taught or believed cold war military tactics is retiring or will be soon. So new doctrines will emerge. <armchair_opinion/>

ape4 4y ago
Yup drone vs drone seems like the future.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Reinforcement Learning will shine. From starcraft, even with all the handicaps, AlphaStar was capable of out maneuvering and outdoing humans in micro(management) without breaking a sweat! Now remove those limitations and let the stuff run on the hardware the US military has access to and you have a truly lethal swarm.
thinkmassive 4y ago
Battlebots: Electronic Warfare edition! The ultimate faraday cage match, where swarms of autonomous surface and air vehicles jam, cook, and subvert the circuits of the opposition into oblivion
wefarrell 4y ago
Considering drones are more expendable than humans we're more likely to see high volume swarms of low cost, lightly armored drones. Armor will likely be reserved for any humans who need to be in close proximity to the firefight.
4y ago

hef19898 4y ago

>> The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver. Doctrine and training are paramount, together with command and control that's what enabled the early German successes in WW1. And in the case of France a ton of luck. The article asks the right question: is the role of the tank still needed? A Javelin neutralizes a tank, under the right conditions, it doesn't replace it.

zip1234 4y ago
I saw some tanker on twitter explaining just how bad the Russian tactics with their tanks are. Poor training, poor logistics, and undermanned. Tanks get such poor gas mileage that they need tons of support. Extremely effective weapons when used properly but clearly Russia is not doing that.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Thr Turkish army lost a couple of top of the line Leopard 2s in Syria some years ago for the exact same reason: lack of infantry support. Seems that the "West", spearheaded by the US, has the most experienced military in the world at the moment. 20 years of counter insurgency warfare and some more conventional wars before that seriously helped a lot. Just how much is at display in Ukraine, first by the, so far, Russian failures and second by the preparation and performance of the Ukrainians, which where supported, cinsulted and equiped by NATO for years by now.
  - fork1 4y ago
    There is an issue with that, being efficient in conter insurgency warfare doesn't necessarily translate into High Intensity warfare. Infantry support for armor is one, but things like maneuvers, operating under contested skies, EW, etc. When were NATO troops under heavy sustained artillery barrages? I m quite impressed by the attrition in both troops, ammo, and material. More than Wunderwaffen, i think the lesson is more in trained personel reserves, as well as stockpiles.
  - throwmeariver1 4y ago

k__ 4y ago

It's a bit like with the knights armor and the invention of the gun powder.

swader999 4y ago
Or the stirrup before this.

bjourne 4y ago

I think the article should have mentioned the first Gulf war too. There US attack helicopters more or less obliterated the Iraqi tank-based army.

H8crilA 4y ago
Only works against an unsophisticated enemy that has no MANPADS. Helicopters are way more vulnerable than tanks.

simonh 4y ago

The tank isn't dead because armies still need the capabilities the tank gives them. You need a long range direct fire weapon, capable of engaging armoured targets and infantry (canister or airburst rounds), with rapid engagement of multiple targets, low time to target, rapid reloads and follow up shots, and high survivability. Lighter wheeled gun armed vehicles can be cheaper, but they don't have the survivability. They also can't go everywhere a tracked tank can go, such as jungle busting or just driving right through many kinds of buildings or cover. Missile have much longer flight times to target than gun rounds. A tank can move into position, fire, destroy it's target and be back in cover before a missile gets anywhere near it's target. The missiles are also vastly more expensive than tank rounds. Yes tanks are vulnerable when not properly integrated with air support, artillery and infantry. They're still a lot more survivable than pretty much anything else that can provide the same capabilities though. One tank in the second Gulf War shrugged off 14 RPG hits, and overall tanks in that conflict amply proved their value, when used effectively.

irrational 4y ago
But, this doesn’t address his points from the end of the article about cheap drone swarm attacks on the top side of tanks.
- simonh 4y ago
  Or on the top side of infantry. I'd still rather be in a tank. What this tells me is we need better anti-drone air defences.
- nimbius 4y ago
  s/drones/air support/ imho the failures observed caused by manpad in the ukrane theatre were directly attributable to an almost comically poor systems integration on the part of the aggressor and an unwillingness to commit longer range artillery and missile strikes to soften what were hardened infantry targets equipped with sixth generation anti-air and anti-tank weaponry.
  - lumost 4y ago

inglor 4y ago

Lots of outdated information here. I served in the IDF on something related and (obviously) can't disclose anything of military importance but do you really think for the last 16 years tank armor hasn't gotten (much) better to deal with these threats? Do you (honestly) believe the US doesn't have tank armor that can withstand a (from the top) hit from a Javelin? The tank is not dead (well, not any more than large tank charges are probably dead and ww2 style combat is dead? We likely won't see anything like in desert storm or the Yom Kippur war again).

Pelic4n 4y ago
>Do you (honestly) believe the US doesn't have tank armor that can withstand a (from the top) hit from a Javelin? If this exists, why did the USMC binned their tanks 2 years ago stating they weren't cost-effective anymore? I'll believe this exists when I'll see it, but so far we have seen $4M tanks defeated by $100K javelins with a 93% kill rate, and so far cope cages have done nothing against them.
- inglor 4y ago
  I did not work for the USMC and the strategic goals of the IDF (land defense, small area) are very different so I can't answer for sure. In many modern battle scenarios (specifically urban warfare scenarios) tanks aren't of much use so I totally see binning them in favor of better combined arms. Also again: you are taking Russian armor survivability as proof for US armor survivability against the same threat. I totally get if you take my comments here with a (big) grain of salt because I can't provide citations and I'm not making any direct claims about US armor survivability against Javelins (and you'll note you won't find any videos/info online about that because of classification).
- simonh 4y ago
  The USMC had become a second land army, and decided they needed a mission and set of capabilities of their own. They've pivoted to facing off against China in the Pacific theatre and decided that tanks just don't fit into their requirements for that mission. If they do need tank support, the army has plenty.
- 4y ago

SEJeff 4y ago

Is it really though? There are some really good active protection systems like Israel's TROPHY which do a pretty good job taking out incoming sabot style (tank shell, javelin, RPG) warheads. The modern incarnation[1] (M1A2 SEPv2) of the US Abrams tanks all have it [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) [2] https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-tank/ https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-t...

greesil 4y ago
No way it can take out sabot rounds. It's got to much kinetic energy and moves much faster than an ATGM
- hef19898 4y ago
  And SABOTs are usually fired from other tanks, so...
- SEJeff 4y ago
  A sabot round is really two parts, right? You have the shaped charge that blows up exterior armor and then a small penetrator, generally the size and shape roughly of a pencil, that goes in and makes a tiny hole. Active protection systems like Trophy are designed to pre-detonate that shaped charge so that they actual sabot penetrator just bounces off the normal armor, or is hit by ERA (explosive reactive armor). I'm sure APS work better against most ATGMs than sabots, but fundamentally, many of them are designed similarly. Sans maybe there are no depleted uranium ATGMs.
  - sushibowl 4y ago
    modern APFSDS rounds work purely through kinetic energy penetration and don't contain any explosive charge. The penetrator is usually around an inch in diameter, and maybe 30 inches long. I doubt Trophy can target these rounds effectively since velocity is just too high, something like mach 5 (compared to a javelin's paltry 140 m/s).

exabrial 4y ago

The way _Russia_ uses tanks has been dead... basically since 1972 and the advent of the A10. Here a $23 munition, fired quickly, could chew up an armor column. Don't forget the Javelin is still $250k, it's not exactly cheap. Tanks must be supported by infantry teams. Without capable mortar teams, rifle teams, automatic weapons teams, they are sitting ducks, as Russia has proven.

chernevik 4y ago
The A10 probably couldn't survive in the Ukraine airwar environment.
- greedo 4y ago
  Nope. Maybe slightly better than the SU-25s have, and Maverick etc might make them able to stand off a bit from all the manpads, but the A-10 would be an easy kill for any fighters/SAMS.
- exabrial 4y ago
  Of course, you wouldn't send an A10 without uncontested airspace, you would send F35s first.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

You still need something to move troops though, this just means that every tank will soon have lasers to target and destroy missiles fired at it.

rozab 4y ago

I think this article downplays the ludicrous effectiveness of anti-tank weapons in ww2. https://youtu.be/QPJRd_XiDGg https://youtu.be/QPJRd_XiDGg Tanks have always been vulnerable to very cheap infrantry weapons if used badly.

throwawayffffas 4y ago

The gist of the article which I agree a lot seems to be. Nothing has significantly changed since the 80s-90s, ATGMs have gotten better but they were still a huge problem back then and the solution seems to be the same, better recon, more artillery. Drones don't represent something new but really precision strikes at a discount, capabilities only available to major powers once are now "buy off the shelf". The TB-2 with a couple of MAM missiles does the same job as an f4 with a couple of walleyes. The only difference being the f4 cost 2 million dollars in 1965 while the TB-2 costs 2 million dollars now.

greedo 4y ago
Not even $2M. Have you seen the footage of the UA/TDF using civilian quadrotor drones to drop anti-tank hand grenades on vehicles? As long as the radio spectrum is open, these type of attacks will be very hard to stop.
- lakis 4y ago
  anti-tank hand grenades are obsolete. The only use is to somehow get them to detonate under the tank and pray it will do something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade At best they are used not against tanks but against light armored vehicles like "Humvees, Strykers and MRAPs " without any armor upgrades
  - greedo 4y ago
    Tell that to the tanks being destroyed as I described. These drones are dropping RKG-1600 grenades on to the top of Russia's top tanks and destroying them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMWHTVLWo2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMWHTVLWo2E Wikipedia is not always a good source for military information, FYI... https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/grenades/rkg-1600-hand-grenade https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/grenades/rkg-1600-hand...

S_A_P 4y ago

The tank is now an unmanned flying drone- so it is just a change of form factor.

chernevik 4y ago

I don't think the article pays enough attention to drones. It does mention their importance, and the possibility that they will do away with armor altogether -- and then says, "well, we don't yet know if that's right, so tanks are probably still important." Seems to me that whether or not that is right is the big question.

kkfx 4y ago

Modern war is no longer military show, resemble more criminal-based guerrilla. Traditional military technique can work or not much depending on combatant motivation more than mere material superiority. Given that modern war should be centered toward war crimes, witch means using civilian stuff to disguise forces, mass kill people with poisoned water without damaging significantly the infra, use and abuse modern IT crap vulnerabilities do disable infra (like electric grid, connected vehicles etc) without physical damage, spread disinformation with the best possible ability etc. That's why, for instance, in Ukraine Russia can't really arrive to a quick victory. Such immoral and criminal pattern is nothing new: WWI was a combat between armies, civilians are evacuated before combats, non-combatant on the front line was a bit respected etc, WWII change the game hitting civilians without any morale, hitting ambulances, putting military in hospitals etc. Now we do not even use State's official army preferring mercenaries with formally no flag and no code of conduct, engaging rule: "do what you want but win". In such scenario try to be civil is not doable, the sole option is show equal behaviors, not encouraging criminals and violence per se, but mastering it to crush enemy forces and push civilians of all sides against the combatant because being unable to distinguish between them any unknown human being can be an enemy so a legit target for all sides. Reaching such level of brutality means creating just bloodbaths where public opinion will rise at a certain point against the war itself. At that point no gear will work, the force of the crowd could not be stopped. That's the modern strategy no one admit of course, but many practice shamefully.

jcmontx 4y ago

> The 1967 Arab-Israeli War was the first conflict since World War II that saw the large-scale employment of tank formations on a mobile battlefield Anyone with a mild knowledge of history knows about the huge tank battle that took place between India and Pakistan in 1965. Hard to take the article without any reference to that conflict.