6 ms·

Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q Chieftain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://w

by csours 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    Yes, the Warcraft II and III tank units get scrapped real quick if you don't protect them!
  - UncleMeat 5y 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.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >humans are not necessarily "cheap disposable units" Putin and most of the Russian military doctrine would beg to differ.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        "Not necessarily." It depends on the nation and their political situation.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        To what degree do you think that Russia's losses in Afghanistan led to the fall of the Soviet Union? Since 1945, Russia hasn't shown that it can accept a war of mass casualties without political fallout. Russian military doctrine may say that it can, but Putin would be unwise to assume so.
  - bena 5y ago
    Yeah, you don't make units, you make battalions. Siege tanks are grouped with marines and firebats for protection, Marines and medics run with medics for assistance. Have your infantry out front. Move to a location, plant your troops, put your tanks in siege mode, rain hellfire down upon aerial defenses and approaching units so your Battlecruisers can come in with their Vulture and Wraith support to decimate a base. It takes a village. You know, to destroy the other guys village. But still. Villages.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  The Javelin can kill tanks from what distance, up to four kilometers? (Officially, less so, but the Ukrainians seem to be pulling off more distant hits than what the vendor documentation says.) No realistic amount of infantry support can shield you against weapons with such a huge range. An entire army could, but that is obviously too much.
  - kitrose 5y ago
    A tank can engage at similar distances.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      If it knows what/where exactly to engage... The point is that a soldier with a Javelin is a much less visible target than a big vehicle. Even if he runs just 40 meters away between the firing of the missile and its impact, any return fire aimed at the original site will likely miss him. And there can be a hundred of such Javelin-equipped soldiers in range.
      - kitrose 5y ago
        I was an armored vehicle officer in the USMC. ATGMs are a long standing threat. There’s no scenario where hundreds of Javelins are sitting in one infantry company. It’s the type of thing that only makes sense on paper. Would be much more worried about evolution of loitering fires with drones.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        As of today, hundreds are out of question, yes. But there may be cheaper and better models one day. This war has shown that ATGMs, MANPADs and their ilk have a huge potential, which means that a lot of countries and companies are going to pour resources into R&D. This usually means an overall improvement in capabilities and possibly a reduced price tag. As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse. Russia still cannot do that, but for rich Western countries, it is an absolutely realistic option.
- 542458 5y ago
  I guess my dumb question is: with a Ukraine-style conflict where there’s a ton of ATGMs floating around, do even properly-supported tanks actually provide net value or do they just soak up friendly infantry resources that could be devoted to other things? The range on modern ATGMs is huge, measured in KMs - seems like you’d need a ton of infantry support to keep from getting picked off. If your enemy doesn’t have ATGMs, sure, a tank can provide a lot of value - but it seems like a safe assumption that a modern adversary will have them. Does the value equation still work?
  - _kbh_ 5y ago
    Even with men on the ground how useful is a tank, when someone can use a remotely controlled ATGM that can hit targets upto ~5km away?.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - csours 5y ago
    It's hard to say what net value means in a Ukraine-style conflict.
Pelic4n 5y ago
$4M tanks are defeated by a $40K NLAW. Much like cuirassiers cavalry who were rendered obsolete by muskets becoming rifles with increased penetration, it's not because tanks don't works, it's because it's so cheap to kill one and so expensive to make one. Until very recently, 2 guys hiding in a bush couldn't kill a tank, you needed a predator drone, an helicopter or some other advanced system requiring heavy logistics. Now behind every bush and every road corner is a potential enemy able to defeat you. With >90% kill ratio for javelins, the tanks needs to be lucky for weeks on end to survive, and the ATGM needs to be lucky only once.
- fork1 5y ago
  A guy hiding in a bush was able to defeat tanks since the invention of HEAT in WW2. Before that, they were other ways as well.
  - Pelic4n 5y ago
    Correction: A guy hiding in a bush wasn't able to reliably defeat tanks before. Handheld old anti-tank weapons like RPGs with HEAT warheads were extremely unreliable, defeated by reactive explosive armors, successful only at very close range and so on. Modern ATGMs able to be fired from kilometers away and with >90% kill rates completely changes the dynamic. Those systems are only going to get smarter and cheaper when there is a physical limit on the armor+weight+cost+logistical support equation for tanks.
    - fork1 5y ago
      I would be wary of those numbers. There is a heavy selection bias, as we don't see the videos where the AT weapons fails, where the operator gets shot, etc. We'll have better information once the fog of war lifts.
michaelt 5y ago
Not sure I agree the $8.9M cost of an M1 Abrams is 'cheap' And you don't just have the cost of the tank - there's also the cost of all the logistics needed to get the tank to the battlefield, no matter where it is in the world - and then to feed it a constant supply of fuel, ammo, spare parts and repair.
- csours 5y ago
  War is terrible for people. I want to state that because sometimes people fixate on technical systems. Tanks are expensive, missiles that can defeat tanks are cheap. But the question is, what is a replacement good for a tank? What fills the role? What is the role? Does it take a platoon to replace a tank? The lifetime value of a human is only going up. Most soldiers go on to take jobs and contribute to the economy of a nation. You could think of a tank saving the lives of the 3 people inside it, or the lives of the 10 or 20 people it would take to fill the role if the tank was not available. You could think of the days, hours, or minutes of fighting it might save, which might translate to many more lives saved. Also consider the political cost of loss of life. I don't think it is AT ALL clear how to evaluate the relative costs here. One would have to consider the mission at hand and the value of that mission.
- coryfklein 5y ago
  Now I'm really curious what the cost of a modern U.S. soldier is. Recruitment and acquisition, training, outfitting, salary, food, etc. And if you build a tank once then you can park it in a warehouse nearly in perpetuity, whereas I expect humans require much more upkeep to retain skills and replace from turnover. I'm guessing the total lifetime cost of a trained soldier is less than $8.9M but I wouldn't be suprised to find that the figures are comparable in the end.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
I think that's a good oversimplification of Bernard. To oversimplify Chieftan: A tank performs a critical role. You can't replace it until you have something else performing that role.

by csours 5y ago

DarkWiiPlayer 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  Yes, the Warcraft II and III tank units get scrapped real quick if you don't protect them!
- UncleMeat 5y 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.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >humans are not necessarily "cheap disposable units" Putin and most of the Russian military doctrine would beg to differ.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      "Not necessarily." It depends on the nation and their political situation.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      To what degree do you think that Russia's losses in Afghanistan led to the fall of the Soviet Union? Since 1945, Russia hasn't shown that it can accept a war of mass casualties without political fallout. Russian military doctrine may say that it can, but Putin would be unwise to assume so.
- bena 5y ago
  Yeah, you don't make units, you make battalions. Siege tanks are grouped with marines and firebats for protection, Marines and medics run with medics for assistance. Have your infantry out front. Move to a location, plant your troops, put your tanks in siege mode, rain hellfire down upon aerial defenses and approaching units so your Battlecruisers can come in with their Vulture and Wraith support to decimate a base. It takes a village. You know, to destroy the other guys village. But still. Villages.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 5y ago
The Javelin can kill tanks from what distance, up to four kilometers? (Officially, less so, but the Ukrainians seem to be pulling off more distant hits than what the vendor documentation says.) No realistic amount of infantry support can shield you against weapons with such a huge range. An entire army could, but that is obviously too much.
- kitrose 5y ago
  A tank can engage at similar distances.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    If it knows what/where exactly to engage... The point is that a soldier with a Javelin is a much less visible target than a big vehicle. Even if he runs just 40 meters away between the firing of the missile and its impact, any return fire aimed at the original site will likely miss him. And there can be a hundred of such Javelin-equipped soldiers in range.
    - kitrose 5y ago
      I was an armored vehicle officer in the USMC. ATGMs are a long standing threat. There’s no scenario where hundreds of Javelins are sitting in one infantry company. It’s the type of thing that only makes sense on paper. Would be much more worried about evolution of loitering fires with drones.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        As of today, hundreds are out of question, yes. But there may be cheaper and better models one day. This war has shown that ATGMs, MANPADs and their ilk have a huge potential, which means that a lot of countries and companies are going to pour resources into R&D. This usually means an overall improvement in capabilities and possibly a reduced price tag. As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse. Russia still cannot do that, but for rich Western countries, it is an absolutely realistic option.
542458 5y ago
I guess my dumb question is: with a Ukraine-style conflict where there’s a ton of ATGMs floating around, do even properly-supported tanks actually provide net value or do they just soak up friendly infantry resources that could be devoted to other things? The range on modern ATGMs is huge, measured in KMs - seems like you’d need a ton of infantry support to keep from getting picked off. If your enemy doesn’t have ATGMs, sure, a tank can provide a lot of value - but it seems like a safe assumption that a modern adversary will have them. Does the value equation still work?
- _kbh_ 5y ago
  Even with men on the ground how useful is a tank, when someone can use a remotely controlled ATGM that can hit targets upto ~5km away?.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- csours 5y ago
  It's hard to say what net value means in a Ukraine-style conflict.

Pelic4n 5y ago

$4M tanks are defeated by a $40K NLAW. Much like cuirassiers cavalry who were rendered obsolete by muskets becoming rifles with increased penetration, it's not because tanks don't works, it's because it's so cheap to kill one and so expensive to make one. Until very recently, 2 guys hiding in a bush couldn't kill a tank, you needed a predator drone, an helicopter or some other advanced system requiring heavy logistics. Now behind every bush and every road corner is a potential enemy able to defeat you. With >90% kill ratio for javelins, the tanks needs to be lucky for weeks on end to survive, and the ATGM needs to be lucky only once.

fork1 5y ago
A guy hiding in a bush was able to defeat tanks since the invention of HEAT in WW2. Before that, they were other ways as well.
- Pelic4n 5y ago
  Correction: A guy hiding in a bush wasn't able to reliably defeat tanks before. Handheld old anti-tank weapons like RPGs with HEAT warheads were extremely unreliable, defeated by reactive explosive armors, successful only at very close range and so on. Modern ATGMs able to be fired from kilometers away and with >90% kill rates completely changes the dynamic. Those systems are only going to get smarter and cheaper when there is a physical limit on the armor+weight+cost+logistical support equation for tanks.
  - fork1 5y ago
    I would be wary of those numbers. There is a heavy selection bias, as we don't see the videos where the AT weapons fails, where the operator gets shot, etc. We'll have better information once the fog of war lifts.

michaelt 5y ago

Not sure I agree the $8.9M cost of an M1 Abrams is 'cheap' And you don't just have the cost of the tank - there's also the cost of all the logistics needed to get the tank to the battlefield, no matter where it is in the world - and then to feed it a constant supply of fuel, ammo, spare parts and repair.

csours 5y ago
War is terrible for people. I want to state that because sometimes people fixate on technical systems. Tanks are expensive, missiles that can defeat tanks are cheap. But the question is, what is a replacement good for a tank? What fills the role? What is the role? Does it take a platoon to replace a tank? The lifetime value of a human is only going up. Most soldiers go on to take jobs and contribute to the economy of a nation. You could think of a tank saving the lives of the 3 people inside it, or the lives of the 10 or 20 people it would take to fill the role if the tank was not available. You could think of the days, hours, or minutes of fighting it might save, which might translate to many more lives saved. Also consider the political cost of loss of life. I don't think it is AT ALL clear how to evaluate the relative costs here. One would have to consider the mission at hand and the value of that mission.
coryfklein 5y ago
Now I'm really curious what the cost of a modern U.S. soldier is. Recruitment and acquisition, training, outfitting, salary, food, etc. And if you build a tank once then you can park it in a warehouse nearly in perpetuity, whereas I expect humans require much more upkeep to retain skills and replace from turnover. I'm guessing the total lifetime cost of a trained soldier is less than $8.9M but I wouldn't be suprised to find that the figures are comparable in the end.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

I think that's a good oversimplification of Bernard. To oversimplify Chieftan: A tank performs a critical role. You can't replace it until you have something else performing that role.