7 ms·

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructu

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of a $500 drone with the equivalent of a RKG-3 grenade to take one out is really the only relevant part of the question. Tanks are dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe Edit to add; "expensive to operate" was a bit of an understatement, the logistical support required for a tank company is tremendous, totally preposperous; 1000s of gallons of fuel a day, 3 types of ammo, support equipment and personnel.

ckozlowski 4y ago
To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can. When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eftychis 4y ago
  Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
  - yding 4y ago
    If you're talking about DJI or equivalents they only have 30 minutes or so of flight time and can carry at most one bomb at a time. They can be useful in guerrilla situations but firepower wise it's not even in the same league as a tank with 40-60 cannon rounds and several thousand machine gun rounds.
    - wyldfire 4y ago
      What if the drone were so inexpensive and portable that you could consider it like you do ammunition? Then the flight time and payload is much less critical - it's just a pilot-able bomb.
      - Firmwarrior 4y ago
        What if we just donated that money to all these hostile countries' citizens, and told them we'd stop the donations if they piss us off? Instead of dreaming of turning the future warzone from Terminator 2 into a reality?
        _carbyau_ 4y ago
        Well, that (economic intervention) has effectively happened to Russia. And yet they are still going it seems. So to answer your question: Nothing would happen, at least for a few months it seems.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dolmen 4y ago
        It's easier for infantry to carry one drone and ammunitions than a set of one-shot drones.
        dodobirdlord 4y ago
        In practice it’s actually the opposite. A reusable drone has to have enough fuel to come back, which halves its range compared to a loitering munition that doesn’t come back. A reusable drone isn’t intended to collide with the target, and can’t be rocket-powered, so it will be much slower to reach and strike a target when the target is identified. It has to have the ability to land and to be rearmed, which adds complexity and thus expense. Past a certain size a drone can fly high enough and far enough that it fills the combat role of an aircraft, but as far as man-portable systems go, well-resourced militaries demonstrate consistent preference for single-use guided explosives like the Javelin or Switchblade to maximize range and payload size and minimize time to impact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yding 4y ago
Drones or no drones, I'd rather be sitting behind 35cm of hardened steel than out in the open with maybe 2cm of body armor max.
etrevino 4y ago
The Trophy Weapon System can intercept and defeat anti-tank missiles and grenades and has been proven in combat. Both US and Israeli tanks have those mounted on them. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss tanks as dead. Just older tanks without active countermeasures are dead.
- lmm 4y ago
  Those active countermeasures can be fitted to lighter armoured cars or self-propelled guns. At some point the costs of carrying 50 tonnes of passive armour outweigh the benefits.
mymythisisthis 4y ago
What about drone tanks?
aerostable_slug 4y ago
I don't think the commodity drone approach is going to work very well against a competently-run military with electronic warfare capabilities the Russians seem not to be employing. To defeat capable EW, you'd need self-directed swarms of drones, and we don't have those yet (especially not at Best Buy). I agree that remotely-piloted commodity drones would likely make a terrible mess of something like an African army with T-55s and not much else, and of course today's Russia (I never thought I'd write that sentence). I concur on the cost of armor, but it comes with significant benefits, hence the investment we've made in logistics to support them. It's only preposterous when the situation makes it so, like a highly mobile island hopping campaign. They worked pretty well in Iraq. Twice.
jeffdn 4y ago
Dropping an RKG-3 grenade on a tank from a cheap drone also requires that the tank be stopped -- something that happens far less often in a war of movement than in trench warfare. The war in Ukraine has been extraordinarily static (like the Nagorno-Karabakh War), and this has provided the opportunities for COTS drones to be useful in this way. A combined-arms offensive on a divisional or corps front might take a handful of losses this way, but it most certainly will not be stopped.
stonemetal12 4y ago
RPGs have existed for along time. How does using a drone to deliver the grenade instead of a rocket really change the scenario?
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  Would you rather take on a tank with an RPG in hand, or be safe in a bunker and remote control your attack? If you made a misstake in the first scenario, there is no second try. But if you have a second drone, there is. (ukraine has more men than drones, though)
  - stonemetal12 4y ago
    Drones are slow and not heavily armored. It seems like a shot gun would be good enough to take them down before they got close enough to hurt your tank. While they are doing a good job now it wouldn't surprise me if anti drone counter measures are easy\quick to develop.
- tonyhb 4y ago
  The "shock" part of "shock effect" is kind of diminished if you can hide miles away from tanks, completely safe, and neuter them.
  - dodobirdlord 4y ago
    A munition that doesn’t have to come back is always going to have more range and be able to carry more payload weight than one that does have to come back afterward.

ckozlowski 4y ago

To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can. When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eftychis 4y ago
Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
- yding 4y ago
  If you're talking about DJI or equivalents they only have 30 minutes or so of flight time and can carry at most one bomb at a time. They can be useful in guerrilla situations but firepower wise it's not even in the same league as a tank with 40-60 cannon rounds and several thousand machine gun rounds.
  - wyldfire 4y ago
    What if the drone were so inexpensive and portable that you could consider it like you do ammunition? Then the flight time and payload is much less critical - it's just a pilot-able bomb.
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      What if we just donated that money to all these hostile countries' citizens, and told them we'd stop the donations if they piss us off? Instead of dreaming of turning the future warzone from Terminator 2 into a reality?
      - _carbyau_ 4y ago
        Well, that (economic intervention) has effectively happened to Russia. And yet they are still going it seems. So to answer your question: Nothing would happen, at least for a few months it seems.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - dolmen 4y ago
      It's easier for infantry to carry one drone and ammunitions than a set of one-shot drones.
      - dodobirdlord 4y ago
        In practice it’s actually the opposite. A reusable drone has to have enough fuel to come back, which halves its range compared to a loitering munition that doesn’t come back. A reusable drone isn’t intended to collide with the target, and can’t be rocket-powered, so it will be much slower to reach and strike a target when the target is identified. It has to have the ability to land and to be rearmed, which adds complexity and thus expense. Past a certain size a drone can fly high enough and far enough that it fills the combat role of an aircraft, but as far as man-portable systems go, well-resourced militaries demonstrate consistent preference for single-use guided explosives like the Javelin or Switchblade to maximize range and payload size and minimize time to impact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yding 4y ago

Drones or no drones, I'd rather be sitting behind 35cm of hardened steel than out in the open with maybe 2cm of body armor max.

etrevino 4y ago

The Trophy Weapon System can intercept and defeat anti-tank missiles and grenades and has been proven in combat. Both US and Israeli tanks have those mounted on them. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss tanks as dead. Just older tanks without active countermeasures are dead.

lmm 4y ago
Those active countermeasures can be fitted to lighter armoured cars or self-propelled guns. At some point the costs of carrying 50 tonnes of passive armour outweigh the benefits.

mymythisisthis 4y ago

What about drone tanks?

aerostable_slug 4y ago

I don't think the commodity drone approach is going to work very well against a competently-run military with electronic warfare capabilities the Russians seem not to be employing. To defeat capable EW, you'd need self-directed swarms of drones, and we don't have those yet (especially not at Best Buy). I agree that remotely-piloted commodity drones would likely make a terrible mess of something like an African army with T-55s and not much else, and of course today's Russia (I never thought I'd write that sentence). I concur on the cost of armor, but it comes with significant benefits, hence the investment we've made in logistics to support them. It's only preposterous when the situation makes it so, like a highly mobile island hopping campaign. They worked pretty well in Iraq. Twice.

jeffdn 4y ago

Dropping an RKG-3 grenade on a tank from a cheap drone also requires that the tank be stopped -- something that happens far less often in a war of movement than in trench warfare. The war in Ukraine has been extraordinarily static (like the Nagorno-Karabakh War), and this has provided the opportunities for COTS drones to be useful in this way. A combined-arms offensive on a divisional or corps front might take a handful of losses this way, but it most certainly will not be stopped.

stonemetal12 4y ago

RPGs have existed for along time. How does using a drone to deliver the grenade instead of a rocket really change the scenario?

hutzlibu 4y ago
Would you rather take on a tank with an RPG in hand, or be safe in a bunker and remote control your attack? If you made a misstake in the first scenario, there is no second try. But if you have a second drone, there is. (ukraine has more men than drones, though)
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  Drones are slow and not heavily armored. It seems like a shot gun would be good enough to take them down before they got close enough to hurt your tank. While they are doing a good job now it wouldn't surprise me if anti drone counter measures are easy\quick to develop.
tonyhb 4y ago
The "shock" part of "shock effect" is kind of diminished if you can hide miles away from tanks, completely safe, and neuter them.
- dodobirdlord 4y ago
  A munition that doesn’t have to come back is always going to have more range and be able to carry more payload weight than one that does have to come back afterward.