5 ms·

The second gulf war started almost 20 years ago. Surely you can't use it as an example when anti tank weapons have progressed so much in that time.

inglor 5y ago
The problem with this logic is both that Russia's tank building philosophy is very different than the US's (or Israel's) and that tanks and defensive systems have also improved (significantly) in the last 20 years but the article glosses over that and uses a conflict from 16 years ago and the Ukraine invasion as "proof" that Javelins can kill modern tanks.
- jitl 5y ago
  I think the article is very measured about its approach to the purpose and continued value of tanks, and the specific failing of the Russian army in Ukraine: > The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver. Where is the accompanying infantry with the tank formations, who are supposed to bust the ambushes executed by Ukrainian forces? Where are the suppressive mortar, artillery, and close air support fires? If the Russian Army was tactically skilled, then the Javelin and other ATGMs would be suppressed by artillery or air support and their surviving crews would be swept up by Russian infantry. Thus far, these key competencies seem to be lacking and Russian soldiers are paying a high price for their unpreparedness.
simonh 5y ago
So has reactive armour and systems like Trophy. This argument has been made for many decades at this stage. This isn't just about vulnerability. Infantry are vulnerable to practically everything, sometimes they just drop dead all by themselves. It's also about capabilities. What are you going to use instead, and how is it better?
- Pelic4n 5y ago
  Reported kill rate of javelins fired against tanks in Ukraine is 93%. Just saying.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    That isn't really fair, it is comparing 90's American tech which has presumably been updated over time to, essentially, minimally maintained Soviet tech. Maybe that last 7% is the tanks they've made since ~1990.
    - greedo 5y ago
      The majority of recorded Russian tank losses have been the T-72 B3M Obr. 2016 which is a very new tank, with production starting in 2016 or so...
  - simonh 5y ago
    The numbers don't add up. The US has sent 7,000 javelins to Ukraine and overall they're been sent 30,000 anti-tank weapons and Ukraine is asking for hundreds more per day. It seems unlikely those javelins have killed 6,510 (.93 * 7000) Russian tanks, or that they will be destroying hundreds more per day. Many of the drone videos released by the Ukrainians show tanks hit by ATGMs but not actually being destroyed. For sure the Russians have lots a lot of vehicles to ATGMs, they have proved to be extremely effective weapons, especially against tanks moving forward in tight formations without infantry support. However nobody is looking at the terrible infantry casualties Russia has suffered, due to poor tactics, training and resupply, and concluding that infantry are obsolete. Here's a video of a Ukrainian tank ambushing a Russian convoy. Seems like a pretty effective weapon system to me. https://youtu.be/S27kw7XVvSA https://youtu.be/S27kw7XVvSA
    - Pelic4n 5y ago
      Source for the 93% figure: https://twitter.com/jackmurphyrgr/status/1499470411964235781 https://twitter.com/jackmurphyrgr/status/1499470411964235781 On the video, the ukrainian tank is of course performing an effective ambush. I don't pretend I have the answers, but I wonder how would perform a bunch of infantry with NLAWs striking the column from multiple places at once, for cheaper than the tank, able to engage multiple targets at once, much less spottable, and so on.

inglor 5y ago

The problem with this logic is both that Russia's tank building philosophy is very different than the US's (or Israel's) and that tanks and defensive systems have also improved (significantly) in the last 20 years but the article glosses over that and uses a conflict from 16 years ago and the Ukraine invasion as "proof" that Javelins can kill modern tanks.

jitl 5y ago
I think the article is very measured about its approach to the purpose and continued value of tanks, and the specific failing of the Russian army in Ukraine: > The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver. Where is the accompanying infantry with the tank formations, who are supposed to bust the ambushes executed by Ukrainian forces? Where are the suppressive mortar, artillery, and close air support fires? If the Russian Army was tactically skilled, then the Javelin and other ATGMs would be suppressed by artillery or air support and their surviving crews would be swept up by Russian infantry. Thus far, these key competencies seem to be lacking and Russian soldiers are paying a high price for their unpreparedness.

simonh 5y ago

So has reactive armour and systems like Trophy. This argument has been made for many decades at this stage. This isn't just about vulnerability. Infantry are vulnerable to practically everything, sometimes they just drop dead all by themselves. It's also about capabilities. What are you going to use instead, and how is it better?

Pelic4n 5y ago
Reported kill rate of javelins fired against tanks in Ukraine is 93%. Just saying.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  That isn't really fair, it is comparing 90's American tech which has presumably been updated over time to, essentially, minimally maintained Soviet tech. Maybe that last 7% is the tanks they've made since ~1990.
  - greedo 5y ago
    The majority of recorded Russian tank losses have been the T-72 B3M Obr. 2016 which is a very new tank, with production starting in 2016 or so...
- simonh 5y ago
  The numbers don't add up. The US has sent 7,000 javelins to Ukraine and overall they're been sent 30,000 anti-tank weapons and Ukraine is asking for hundreds more per day. It seems unlikely those javelins have killed 6,510 (.93 * 7000) Russian tanks, or that they will be destroying hundreds more per day. Many of the drone videos released by the Ukrainians show tanks hit by ATGMs but not actually being destroyed. For sure the Russians have lots a lot of vehicles to ATGMs, they have proved to be extremely effective weapons, especially against tanks moving forward in tight formations without infantry support. However nobody is looking at the terrible infantry casualties Russia has suffered, due to poor tactics, training and resupply, and concluding that infantry are obsolete. Here's a video of a Ukrainian tank ambushing a Russian convoy. Seems like a pretty effective weapon system to me. https://youtu.be/S27kw7XVvSA https://youtu.be/S27kw7XVvSA
  - Pelic4n 5y ago
    Source for the 93% figure: https://twitter.com/jackmurphyrgr/status/1499470411964235781 https://twitter.com/jackmurphyrgr/status/1499470411964235781 On the video, the ukrainian tank is of course performing an effective ambush. I don't pretend I have the answers, but I wonder how would perform a bunch of infantry with NLAWs striking the column from multiple places at once, for cheaper than the tank, able to engage multiple targets at once, much less spottable, and so on.