6 ms·

> Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are. Was watching a video, of a guy basicall

> Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are. Was watching a video, of a guy basically explaining that tanks may be becoming less of a focus in modern armies, as new weapons and tactics easily counter them. I guess it’s kinda like when Calvary first started to fall from its throne in warfare, due to new advancements in infantry tactics.

rvba 4y ago
Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets..
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now increasing frantically to make up for lost time).
  - pas 4y ago
    it was a perfectly valid argument (and Trump made it into an idiotic talking point in his typical dumbfuck aggressive tantrum style) the important aspect to keep in mind with other NATO members slacking on their own defense is that it directly increases US influence over them. basically the US and those other members semi-knowingly traded dependence and a to a certain degree subservience for protection.
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      I don't see how it directly increases US influence over them? America is compelled to defend those NATO members, no matter how rag-tag or inadequate those NATO members' forces are. America doesn't have the option of saying "no", and they also cop all of the public backlash as these countries get to stir up anti-American sentiments and make life hard for American forces that are rotated through these countries for training.
      - pas 4y ago
        defending someone is not a binary thing. the amount of effort, the degree of severity, the number of troops mobilized, the whole question of use of nukes (tactical or strategic) and there are real problems around bases (~18-20 year olds on leave are going to do what they are usually do anyway) and the last few decades of US interventionism is not exactly a success story. it was not hard to stir up "anti-imperialist" sentiment
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. To go along with this, when Americans train, we mainly practice for peer-combatants, against Russian armor. That means a whole bunch of light infantry, mechanized infantry, combat engineers, calvary and armor, as well as all of our air assets, know how to make it really dangerous for armor. Aka a shooting gallery. > I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. Perhaps at the macro level there is some advice going on, info about positions and definitely tooling. However, when I've seen videos of Russian armor getting hit by infantry, in most cases it was merely columns driving on a road with no support, and some anti-armor missiles hitting them on their flanks. Armor emerging from a treeline in an open area perfect for a long range missile shot from a TOW, no support anywhere. Basically, newb mistakes. In all the videos I have seen, and have watched lots, I have yet to see a full "American style" ambush. I think it may be dangerous for this to happen, because if Russia was regularly losing large amounts of tanks, it would make it that much more likely that they'd go Nuclear. Another reason for this may be Russian responses to various things can include using artillery or missiles against > a grid square. > And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. That was a negotiating tactic. The only way the euros have managed to have such rich social spending is in part, not keeping their promises about contribution levels. The US cannot afford to pick up the tab for everyone's defense in Europe.
  - myko 4y ago
    > That was a negotiating tactic. Afraid not, he was really going to do it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
    - mantas 4y ago
      Fantastic evidence! Meanwhile Trump’s tactic pushed some euro countries to finally increase military spending at least a tiny bit. But most euro militaries are still in a bad shape :(
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. Speaking of Russian assets, there are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby
archontes 4y ago
You had such a chance to say "first started to fall from its saddle..."
KineticLensman 4y ago
> a guy basically explaining that tanks may be becoming less of a focus in modern armies, as new weapons and tactics easily counter them. Tanks will probably reduce in focus given their massive expense vs. the countermeasures but the Russian's tank losses have arisen partly because of their massive tactical incompetence and can't in themselves be taken to mean that tanks are now useless. Tanks work best when used in combined arms ops, with supporting infantry, artillery and air. Sending columns of tanks in single file down main roads and then getting them blown up is basically the plot of "A Bridge Too Far", a.k.a Operation Market Garden in WW2, when the Allies tried to quickly cross multiple bridges into Germany, and discovered the hard way that only the tanks at the front can actually fight, and that if they get stuck, so do all of the others. Obviously the Russian commanders didn't watch this classic film when it was repeated on Sunday afternoon TV. [Edit] That said, I wouldn't necessarily choose AFV crew if I was picking a job in an Army.
- jcranberry 4y ago
  They could've drawn on more recent history - the highway of death event in Iraq during the gulf war.
  - GarvielLoken 4y ago
    The Russians have all the history they need about tank losses. They suffered 76% tank losses during ww2, 83,500 tanks. You think they are stupid and don't know any better. But they have known all the facts sense ww2, it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were used) that you are going to suffer high losses, that doesn't mean that you don't try to attack.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      >You think they are stupid and don't know any better The entire invasion demonstrates massive tactical & strategic incompetence, which is only possible when you're a mafia state. >it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were used) that you are going to suffer high losses Russia planned to roll in and take Kyiv. They appeared to have no contingencies for this not succeeding and that's why they're taking heavy losses. On paper, they should have cut through Ukraine like a knife through hot butter.
some_random 4y ago
I really don't think that's a good comparison, cavalry didn't just fall from grace because they became easily slaughtered by infantry, they stopped being used because their role became irrelevant and were replaced. The role tanks play has not become irrelevant and while they aren't as survivable as they used to be they aren't nearly as vulnerable as clips from UA seem to imply. I'd recommend this video by a former Abrams commander and tank historian who presents this argument far better than I can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8
GarvielLoken 4y ago
They won't. Armchair generals think that massive losses of tanks would mean that they are going away. In real life it does not mean that. In ww2 Soviet lost 76% of all tanks they produces during the war, 83,500. And they still choose a tank focued strategic doctrine after this fact during the cold war, and they knew better than anyone else how many tank losses they suffered during ww2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_... So this war, the Yom Kippur, the Syria war, they have no news regarding tank losses. Tanks were never designed to be invulnerable, and their losses have never meant that they don't work. The Soviet and the Russians knows this. The west think that tank's will survive battle fields, but from a historical point of view that is a delusion. Tanks are still the least bad choice, they are faster and hit harder than infantry, which if you think AFV have it though against drone corrected artillery, infantry is a sheit site worse.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen?
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen? I wouldn't climb into a T-72 in the Russian Army, but not all tanks are T-72s in the Russian army.
  - omegaham 4y ago
    A Russian tank using Russian "combined-arms" doctrine that sends me into a city completely unsupported? That's going to be a big "no" from me. An American tank using American combined-arms doctrine? Well, it's not going to be a risk-free experience, but I'd rather be in the tank than be one of the bullet sponges who are fighting house-to-house to prevent the enemy bullet sponges from sticking an AT-4 out of a window. As other people have noted, "survivability" doesn't really factor into military thinking so much as capabilities. Bullets are extremely lethal to infantrymen, but we still have infantry because infantrymen have capabilities that other equipment platforms do not have. The existence of machine guns doesn't remove the need for infantry; it just changes how they have to be used (more cover and concealment, more need for air, artillery, and tank support). The same is true for tanks - they have capabilities that no other platform can satisfactorily fulfill, so we will continue to have tanks even if anti-armor weapons become even more effective than they already are.
rsync 4y ago
"I guess it’s kinda like when Calvary first started to fall from its throne ..." I hope it is useful and interesting for you know: Calvary is where Christ died. Cavalry are the guys on horses.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Yep that’s one of those seemingly simple words I always fuck up for some reason.
  - oxfeed65261 4y ago
    Possibly-useful technique: think of air cav/armored cav—airborne (helicopter) or armored (tanks etc.) cavalry. No such thing as air calv.
grayfaced 4y ago
Tanks are about safely moving a big gun. Iraq war showed us it's more important to safely move people (up-armored hmmwv). Modern artillery, drones and missiles accomplish the "big gun" role better without having to get close enough to be in danger.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
There's a ton of minor pundits writing this lazy take. It's not a particularly compelling argument. We've known tanks in open terrain and without infantry screening are very vulnerable to ATGMs since the Yom Kippur war. We've also seen recent examples of the same in Syria and Yemen. A tank's utility doesn't rely upon it being somehow uncountable. We know tons of things counter tanks. But the combination of mobility, protection against shrapnel and heavy machine gun fire, and a big gun that can cheaply hit fortifications, while utterly obliterating any other armored vehicle around that's not an MBT, isn't going away any time soon. What we're seeing is instead an increment in a long standing race between offense and defense. Reactive armor swung things towards the defense for a bit. Tandem charges and top attack munitions swung it back. Now Active Protection Systems are dragging it back the defense direction.
somat 4y ago
I don't think so, you will always need what tanks bring to the battlefield, it is just that the ratios may shift. simplified to absurdity it is a sort of rock paper scissors situation. The most economical way to project force is with infantry. the best defense from infantry are machine guns. The best offense against machine guns are armored vehicles(tanks). the most economical defense from tanks are man portable anti-tank weapons. and we have come full circle, the most economical offense to portable anti-tank weapons are infantry. So the trick is to have your combat mix to the correct ratio.

rvba 4y ago

Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets..

jimmydorry 4y ago
Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now increasing frantically to make up for lost time).
- pas 4y ago
  it was a perfectly valid argument (and Trump made it into an idiotic talking point in his typical dumbfuck aggressive tantrum style) the important aspect to keep in mind with other NATO members slacking on their own defense is that it directly increases US influence over them. basically the US and those other members semi-knowingly traded dependence and a to a certain degree subservience for protection.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    I don't see how it directly increases US influence over them? America is compelled to defend those NATO members, no matter how rag-tag or inadequate those NATO members' forces are. America doesn't have the option of saying "no", and they also cop all of the public backlash as these countries get to stir up anti-American sentiments and make life hard for American forces that are rotated through these countries for training.
    - pas 4y ago
      defending someone is not a binary thing. the amount of effort, the degree of severity, the number of troops mobilized, the whole question of use of nukes (tactical or strategic) and there are real problems around bases (~18-20 year olds on leave are going to do what they are usually do anyway) and the last few decades of US interventionism is not exactly a success story. it was not hard to stir up "anti-imperialist" sentiment
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. To go along with this, when Americans train, we mainly practice for peer-combatants, against Russian armor. That means a whole bunch of light infantry, mechanized infantry, combat engineers, calvary and armor, as well as all of our air assets, know how to make it really dangerous for armor. Aka a shooting gallery. > I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. Perhaps at the macro level there is some advice going on, info about positions and definitely tooling. However, when I've seen videos of Russian armor getting hit by infantry, in most cases it was merely columns driving on a road with no support, and some anti-armor missiles hitting them on their flanks. Armor emerging from a treeline in an open area perfect for a long range missile shot from a TOW, no support anywhere. Basically, newb mistakes. In all the videos I have seen, and have watched lots, I have yet to see a full "American style" ambush. I think it may be dangerous for this to happen, because if Russia was regularly losing large amounts of tanks, it would make it that much more likely that they'd go Nuclear. Another reason for this may be Russian responses to various things can include using artillery or missiles against > a grid square. > And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. That was a negotiating tactic. The only way the euros have managed to have such rich social spending is in part, not keeping their promises about contribution levels. The US cannot afford to pick up the tab for everyone's defense in Europe.
- myko 4y ago
  > That was a negotiating tactic. Afraid not, he was really going to do it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
  - mantas 4y ago
    Fantastic evidence! Meanwhile Trump’s tactic pushed some euro countries to finally increase military spending at least a tiny bit. But most euro militaries are still in a bad shape :(
TMWNN 4y ago
>And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. Speaking of Russian assets, there are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby

archontes 4y ago

You had such a chance to say "first started to fall from its saddle..."

KineticLensman 4y ago

> a guy basically explaining that tanks may be becoming less of a focus in modern armies, as new weapons and tactics easily counter them. Tanks will probably reduce in focus given their massive expense vs. the countermeasures but the Russian's tank losses have arisen partly because of their massive tactical incompetence and can't in themselves be taken to mean that tanks are now useless. Tanks work best when used in combined arms ops, with supporting infantry, artillery and air. Sending columns of tanks in single file down main roads and then getting them blown up is basically the plot of "A Bridge Too Far", a.k.a Operation Market Garden in WW2, when the Allies tried to quickly cross multiple bridges into Germany, and discovered the hard way that only the tanks at the front can actually fight, and that if they get stuck, so do all of the others. Obviously the Russian commanders didn't watch this classic film when it was repeated on Sunday afternoon TV. [Edit] That said, I wouldn't necessarily choose AFV crew if I was picking a job in an Army.

jcranberry 4y ago
They could've drawn on more recent history - the highway of death event in Iraq during the gulf war.
- GarvielLoken 4y ago
  The Russians have all the history they need about tank losses. They suffered 76% tank losses during ww2, 83,500 tanks. You think they are stupid and don't know any better. But they have known all the facts sense ww2, it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were used) that you are going to suffer high losses, that doesn't mean that you don't try to attack.
  - multjoy 4y ago
    >You think they are stupid and don't know any better The entire invasion demonstrates massive tactical & strategic incompetence, which is only possible when you're a mafia state. >it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were used) that you are going to suffer high losses Russia planned to roll in and take Kyiv. They appeared to have no contingencies for this not succeeding and that's why they're taking heavy losses. On paper, they should have cut through Ukraine like a knife through hot butter.

some_random 4y ago

I really don't think that's a good comparison, cavalry didn't just fall from grace because they became easily slaughtered by infantry, they stopped being used because their role became irrelevant and were replaced. The role tanks play has not become irrelevant and while they aren't as survivable as they used to be they aren't nearly as vulnerable as clips from UA seem to imply. I'd recommend this video by a former Abrams commander and tank historian who presents this argument far better than I can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8

GarvielLoken 4y ago

They won't. Armchair generals think that massive losses of tanks would mean that they are going away. In real life it does not mean that. In ww2 Soviet lost 76% of all tanks they produces during the war, 83,500. And they still choose a tank focued strategic doctrine after this fact during the cold war, and they knew better than anyone else how many tank losses they suffered during ww2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_... So this war, the Yom Kippur, the Syria war, they have no news regarding tank losses. Tanks were never designed to be invulnerable, and their losses have never meant that they don't work. The Soviet and the Russians knows this. The west think that tank's will survive battle fields, but from a historical point of view that is a delusion. Tanks are still the least bad choice, they are faster and hit harder than infantry, which if you think AFV have it though against drone corrected artillery, infantry is a sheit site worse.

CamperBob2 4y ago
Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen?
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen? I wouldn't climb into a T-72 in the Russian Army, but not all tanks are T-72s in the Russian army.
- omegaham 4y ago
  A Russian tank using Russian "combined-arms" doctrine that sends me into a city completely unsupported? That's going to be a big "no" from me. An American tank using American combined-arms doctrine? Well, it's not going to be a risk-free experience, but I'd rather be in the tank than be one of the bullet sponges who are fighting house-to-house to prevent the enemy bullet sponges from sticking an AT-4 out of a window. As other people have noted, "survivability" doesn't really factor into military thinking so much as capabilities. Bullets are extremely lethal to infantrymen, but we still have infantry because infantrymen have capabilities that other equipment platforms do not have. The existence of machine guns doesn't remove the need for infantry; it just changes how they have to be used (more cover and concealment, more need for air, artillery, and tank support). The same is true for tanks - they have capabilities that no other platform can satisfactorily fulfill, so we will continue to have tanks even if anti-armor weapons become even more effective than they already are.

rsync 4y ago

"I guess it’s kinda like when Calvary first started to fall from its throne ..." I hope it is useful and interesting for you know: Calvary is where Christ died. Cavalry are the guys on horses.

the_only_law 4y ago
Yep that’s one of those seemingly simple words I always fuck up for some reason.
- oxfeed65261 4y ago
  Possibly-useful technique: think of air cav/armored cav—airborne (helicopter) or armored (tanks etc.) cavalry. No such thing as air calv.

grayfaced 4y ago

Tanks are about safely moving a big gun. Iraq war showed us it's more important to safely move people (up-armored hmmwv). Modern artillery, drones and missiles accomplish the "big gun" role better without having to get close enough to be in danger.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

There's a ton of minor pundits writing this lazy take. It's not a particularly compelling argument. We've known tanks in open terrain and without infantry screening are very vulnerable to ATGMs since the Yom Kippur war. We've also seen recent examples of the same in Syria and Yemen. A tank's utility doesn't rely upon it being somehow uncountable. We know tons of things counter tanks. But the combination of mobility, protection against shrapnel and heavy machine gun fire, and a big gun that can cheaply hit fortifications, while utterly obliterating any other armored vehicle around that's not an MBT, isn't going away any time soon. What we're seeing is instead an increment in a long standing race between offense and defense. Reactive armor swung things towards the defense for a bit. Tandem charges and top attack munitions swung it back. Now Active Protection Systems are dragging it back the defense direction.

somat 4y ago

I don't think so, you will always need what tanks bring to the battlefield, it is just that the ratios may shift. simplified to absurdity it is a sort of rock paper scissors situation. The most economical way to project force is with infantry. the best defense from infantry are machine guns. The best offense against machine guns are armored vehicles(tanks). the most economical defense from tanks are man portable anti-tank weapons. and we have come full circle, the most economical offense to portable anti-tank weapons are infantry. So the trick is to have your combat mix to the correct ratio.