4 ms·

But... a tank _is an_ AFV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle You may have meant a

But... a tank _is an_ AFV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle You may have meant an IFV, and in some cases those work. But that's like saying that a rifle and a machine gun both shoot bullets, so why would you want a machine gun?

chrisseaton 4y ago
Any AFV can do it - it doesn’t need to be a tank for what the person I was replying to said they thought they needed. https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoured-vehicles-and-tanks https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoure... Yeah many AFV are undergunned compared to a tank, and we can always want more firepower and more armour, but trade-off on support and things like that starts to break down. The point is if you say you want ‘protected mobility and direct fire to support infantry’ then you don’t need a tank, you just need any AFV. People normally want tanks for anti-tank - well that may well be better done by infantry for the foreseeable future - and for shock action, but that doesn’t seem to work brilliantly in the current environment either as in most environments it’s going to be the tank getting the shock not you.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  What critique of tanks on the modern battlefield doesn't also apply to any other armored vehicle? The same weaknesses and weapons apply to all of them, and the payloads, troop carrier, big gun, etc, can also be supplied by other means if that works out. So I can't see why distinguishing tanks, AFVs, and IFVs helps this discussion... Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Most AFV have some kind of integral infantry support (literally in the back) while a tank needs to be battle-teamed to do that. Battle-teaming is hard to do because inevitably the two vehicles don’t quite match capability. I didn't say tanks only did anti-tank - I said they also do shock action. It's the only reason they exist in that it's the only thing that they are needed for that you couldn't do with another AFV.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      My question is, which of > defeated by these basic WW2 obstacles, and currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons. The best chance of active protection systems from here rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up. does not apply equally well to AFVs? If the answer is "none", why are you talking about AFVs as if they're going to survive longer than tanks? Other vehicles than AFVs can be build to carry troops into battle, if it turns out armor is a bad tradeoff, just as surely as other machines could be designed to provide direct fire support. But a bunch of infantry in a can is always going to be a great target for a Javelin, right?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Other AFVs can have integral dismount support - that’s the difference from a tank in this context.
        greedo 4y ago
        So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed? The reason the Russians are getting sandbagged is because they aren't doing combined arms; In some areas they have tanks, and infantry, but no artillery coordination. Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams, but you have to have the barrels, the field observers to aim it, all in coordination with the tanks and infantry (so you don't smack them). In other areas they have tons of infantry and artillery, but no tanks so they can't really advance. Russia's BTG design isn't really around tanks, but instead AFVs. They use tanks as fire support for infantry, but the average battalion only started the war with around 10 tanks (vs 40 IFV). Of course some units were understrength, (and now much worse). This makes the BTG very brittle when opposing forces have matching tanks and good ATGMs. Combine this with poorly trained infantry, and all those IFVs are just wasted.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed? Like what do you think they should do? Walk everywhere? > Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams I don't think so. These teams are tiny and dispersed. How would you find them, and how would you fix them, in order to bring on guns? Ability to FFS these teams is a major issue (also not solved well by tanks!)

chrisseaton 4y ago

Any AFV can do it - it doesn’t need to be a tank for what the person I was replying to said they thought they needed. https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoured-vehicles-and-tanks https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoure... Yeah many AFV are undergunned compared to a tank, and we can always want more firepower and more armour, but trade-off on support and things like that starts to break down. The point is if you say you want ‘protected mobility and direct fire to support infantry’ then you don’t need a tank, you just need any AFV. People normally want tanks for anti-tank - well that may well be better done by infantry for the foreseeable future - and for shock action, but that doesn’t seem to work brilliantly in the current environment either as in most environments it’s going to be the tank getting the shock not you.

andrewflnr 4y ago
What critique of tanks on the modern battlefield doesn't also apply to any other armored vehicle? The same weaknesses and weapons apply to all of them, and the payloads, troop carrier, big gun, etc, can also be supplied by other means if that works out. So I can't see why distinguishing tanks, AFVs, and IFVs helps this discussion... Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Most AFV have some kind of integral infantry support (literally in the back) while a tank needs to be battle-teamed to do that. Battle-teaming is hard to do because inevitably the two vehicles don’t quite match capability. I didn't say tanks only did anti-tank - I said they also do shock action. It's the only reason they exist in that it's the only thing that they are needed for that you couldn't do with another AFV.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    My question is, which of > defeated by these basic WW2 obstacles, and currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons. The best chance of active protection systems from here rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up. does not apply equally well to AFVs? If the answer is "none", why are you talking about AFVs as if they're going to survive longer than tanks? Other vehicles than AFVs can be build to carry troops into battle, if it turns out armor is a bad tradeoff, just as surely as other machines could be designed to provide direct fire support. But a bunch of infantry in a can is always going to be a great target for a Javelin, right?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Other AFVs can have integral dismount support - that’s the difference from a tank in this context.
      - greedo 4y ago
        So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed? The reason the Russians are getting sandbagged is because they aren't doing combined arms; In some areas they have tanks, and infantry, but no artillery coordination. Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams, but you have to have the barrels, the field observers to aim it, all in coordination with the tanks and infantry (so you don't smack them). In other areas they have tons of infantry and artillery, but no tanks so they can't really advance. Russia's BTG design isn't really around tanks, but instead AFVs. They use tanks as fire support for infantry, but the average battalion only started the war with around 10 tanks (vs 40 IFV). Of course some units were understrength, (and now much worse). This makes the BTG very brittle when opposing forces have matching tanks and good ATGMs. Combine this with poorly trained infantry, and all those IFVs are just wasted.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed? Like what do you think they should do? Walk everywhere? > Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams I don't think so. These teams are tiny and dispersed. How would you find them, and how would you fix them, in order to bring on guns? Ability to FFS these teams is a major issue (also not solved well by tanks!)