8 ms·

What we’ve seen in Ukraine is far from modern tanks fighting with modern tank doctrine. Yes, technically some of those tanks are ‘modern’, but many of them app

What we’ve seen in Ukraine is far from modern tanks fighting with modern tank doctrine. Yes, technically some of those tanks are ‘modern’, but many of them appear to have fake reactive armor, are poorly built, and they are being deployed without infantry, air, or logistical support. It’s the perfect recipe to lose all of your tanks.

paxys 4y ago
Most of what you have mentioned are inherent shortcomings of tanks in a modern battlefield. They are fuel intensive. They need massive logistical support. They are vulnerable to targeted attacks, like from drones. None of this is unique to the Ukraine situation. It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.
- nradov 4y ago
  Right. There were similar discussions about whether the tank has a future after many of them were destroyed in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The main issues were crappy Russian equipment and poor tactics. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/armor-attrition-in-nagorno-karabakh-battle-not-a-sign-us-should-give-up-on-tanks-experts-say/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/...
  - ksidudwbw 4y ago
    There isnt a silver bullet for every situation and condition, but a moveable metal box that can target heat-emitting targets in its line of sight is useful. As long as its potential is fully utilised like machine assisted target aquisiton and liquidation (ai assisted optics + firing)
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic being offered as proof of the end of tanks apply to drones as well? This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability. There is nothing new about this conflict as far as tanks and ATGMs. Everything happening here happened in the Yom Kippor war, in Grozny, in Syria, and in Yemen. You just have a bunch of lazy bloggers and journalists making a sensationalized claim to sound like something exciting and dramatic is happening, at the cost of grossly distorting the actual reality. What will change is future tanks will likely prioritize active protection systems and sensors over bulk armor. But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon. Example, Rheinmetall just announced their new tank prototype this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE A couple key features: * an active protection system specifically for top attack munitions like Javelin * a remote weapons station with a machine gun specifically for engaging small low altitude drones like quad copters * flexible manning, including looking at autonomy and remote control * ability to host drones for its own situational awareness * a loitering munition that's being co-designed, launched by the big gun Maybe the era of the T-72 is over. But the people confidently predicting the era of tanks and armored fighting vehicles in general are over, cuz missiles, cuz drones, frankly, have no clue what they're talking about.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    > and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times and missed the moral of the story... > This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability. The mythology of the board game Go is that it was invented by a Chinese general in an attempt to teach his son strategy and tactics. In that domain there is a concept called Aji, in which you should not write off pieces on the board that are doomed. The fact that they are still on the board makes them useful, even if they can't possibly be saved, saved only by gross error by the opponent, or saving them is possible but devastating to your overall prospects.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Infantry disperse and hide. Tanks really struggle to do either.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
      Which is why you screen tanks with infantry.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Not sure what you think a screen is... but it doesn't hide anything. A screen is about finding, not hiding.
        jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
        Yes, exactly. The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry ATGM groups. Everything that makes enemy infantry with ATGMs more effective tank hunters makes infantry screening the tanks more effective at countering them.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
- hinkley 4y ago
  The Abrams A1 got like half a mile to the gallon didn't it? How many miles can they move before you have to park them next to a giant, unarmored gas can?
  - aaronblohowiak 4y ago
    the abrams had a 500 gallon tank, so... pretty far?
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      Sounds like a pretty big explosive to carry on hand.
      - hinkley 4y ago
        TIL that the energy content of 33k gallons of gas is equivalent to a 1 kiloton bomb. I am probably on a list now for trying to figure out the explosive power of a Javelin missile, which I did not find.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
        Not really. The tanks are outside the armor and just blow up if they get a direct hit. Shockingly enough the people who design gas tanks for tanks thought of the possibility the tank might get shot by something.
      - VincentEvans 4y ago
        It’s ok. They can put it next to the actual explosives.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    US armor formations are based around a 12 hour resupply cycle. This is why an armored brigade is not just the tanks and such, it's also all the logistics equipment they need to sustain operations. That said, logistics is a strength of the US military, and something that is a severe challenge in Ukraine atm.
  - 4y ago
bergenty 4y ago
Tanks are no match for drones. Anything that slow moving will get taken out and cheaply. Reactive armor is good for one maybe two hits and that’s only a couple of thousand in drones.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  One or two hits _in the same spot_. The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  This is assuming there wouldn't be a swarm of drones deployed alongside the tanks. Tanks could be used analogously to aircraft carriers, which would be sitting ducks vs jets/subs/battleships, if it weren't for their own jets they're carrying, or the battleships sailing with them.
  - rubinelli 4y ago
    Aircraft carriers don't have the large cannons of a dreadnought. An armored car that served as launchpad and command center for drones could be drastically lighter, faster, cheaper, and with simpler logistics.
    - dodobirdlord 4y ago
      The main gun on a tank is actually a pretty cost effective weapon. Projectile weapons are a lot cheaper than missiles.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    Yes this would probably work but that doesn’t seem to be what any major army in the world is doing right now.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  An anti tank missile is a "drone" (and has been touted as the end of the tank for the past 50 years or more). Has the much slower-moving propeller driven contraption changed anything significant here?

paxys 4y ago

Most of what you have mentioned are inherent shortcomings of tanks in a modern battlefield. They are fuel intensive. They need massive logistical support. They are vulnerable to targeted attacks, like from drones. None of this is unique to the Ukraine situation. It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.

nradov 4y ago
Right. There were similar discussions about whether the tank has a future after many of them were destroyed in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The main issues were crappy Russian equipment and poor tactics. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/armor-attrition-in-nagorno-karabakh-battle-not-a-sign-us-should-give-up-on-tanks-experts-say/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/...
- ksidudwbw 4y ago
  There isnt a silver bullet for every situation and condition, but a moveable metal box that can target heat-emitting targets in its line of sight is useful. As long as its potential is fully utilised like machine assisted target aquisiton and liquidation (ai assisted optics + firing)
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic being offered as proof of the end of tanks apply to drones as well? This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability. There is nothing new about this conflict as far as tanks and ATGMs. Everything happening here happened in the Yom Kippor war, in Grozny, in Syria, and in Yemen. You just have a bunch of lazy bloggers and journalists making a sensationalized claim to sound like something exciting and dramatic is happening, at the cost of grossly distorting the actual reality. What will change is future tanks will likely prioritize active protection systems and sensors over bulk armor. But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon. Example, Rheinmetall just announced their new tank prototype this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE A couple key features: * an active protection system specifically for top attack munitions like Javelin * a remote weapons station with a machine gun specifically for engaging small low altitude drones like quad copters * flexible manning, including looking at autonomy and remote control * ability to host drones for its own situational awareness * a loitering munition that's being co-designed, launched by the big gun Maybe the era of the T-72 is over. But the people confidently predicting the era of tanks and armored fighting vehicles in general are over, cuz missiles, cuz drones, frankly, have no clue what they're talking about.
- hinkley 4y ago
  > and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times and missed the moral of the story... > This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability. The mythology of the board game Go is that it was invented by a Chinese general in an attempt to teach his son strategy and tactics. In that domain there is a concept called Aji, in which you should not write off pieces on the board that are doomed. The fact that they are still on the board makes them useful, even if they can't possibly be saved, saved only by gross error by the opponent, or saving them is possible but devastating to your overall prospects.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Infantry disperse and hide. Tanks really struggle to do either.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    Which is why you screen tanks with infantry.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Not sure what you think a screen is... but it doesn't hide anything. A screen is about finding, not hiding.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
        Yes, exactly. The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry ATGM groups. Everything that makes enemy infantry with ATGMs more effective tank hunters makes infantry screening the tanks more effective at countering them.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
hinkley 4y ago
The Abrams A1 got like half a mile to the gallon didn't it? How many miles can they move before you have to park them next to a giant, unarmored gas can?
- aaronblohowiak 4y ago
  the abrams had a 500 gallon tank, so... pretty far?
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    Sounds like a pretty big explosive to carry on hand.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      TIL that the energy content of 33k gallons of gas is equivalent to a 1 kiloton bomb. I am probably on a list now for trying to figure out the explosive power of a Javelin missile, which I did not find.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
      Not really. The tanks are outside the armor and just blow up if they get a direct hit. Shockingly enough the people who design gas tanks for tanks thought of the possibility the tank might get shot by something.
    - VincentEvans 4y ago
      It’s ok. They can put it next to the actual explosives.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  US armor formations are based around a 12 hour resupply cycle. This is why an armored brigade is not just the tanks and such, it's also all the logistics equipment they need to sustain operations. That said, logistics is a strength of the US military, and something that is a severe challenge in Ukraine atm.
- 4y ago

bergenty 4y ago

Tanks are no match for drones. Anything that slow moving will get taken out and cheaply. Reactive armor is good for one maybe two hits and that’s only a couple of thousand in drones.

diordiderot 4y ago
One or two hits _in the same spot_. The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins
sixstringtheory 4y ago
This is assuming there wouldn't be a swarm of drones deployed alongside the tanks. Tanks could be used analogously to aircraft carriers, which would be sitting ducks vs jets/subs/battleships, if it weren't for their own jets they're carrying, or the battleships sailing with them.
- rubinelli 4y ago
  Aircraft carriers don't have the large cannons of a dreadnought. An armored car that served as launchpad and command center for drones could be drastically lighter, faster, cheaper, and with simpler logistics.
  - dodobirdlord 4y ago
    The main gun on a tank is actually a pretty cost effective weapon. Projectile weapons are a lot cheaper than missiles.
- bergenty 4y ago
  Yes this would probably work but that doesn’t seem to be what any major army in the world is doing right now.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
An anti tank missile is a "drone" (and has been touted as the end of the tank for the past 50 years or more). Has the much slower-moving propeller driven contraption changed anything significant here?