Comment by the_only_law
4 years ago
> 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.
> 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.
They could've drawn on more recent history - the highway of death event in Iraq during the gulf war.
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.
6 replies →
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_...
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.
They utilized other recent events, including the Marine cooler opting to drop all their tanks (I’ll bet my father was thrilled at that)
But you’re probably right that this is an armchair general making guesstimations. He did have military experience, but not in any capacity that would make him an expert in tank warfare.
FWIW cavalry (as in my analogy) didn’t really die off for a very long time and was still useful in armies for some time, but they were not the symbol and main power of armies that they used to.
The marines are dumping tanks as part of a re orientation to be a true marine island hopping force in the pacific. There's debate over whether this is a viable concept in total, but little debate whether tanks make sense in that environment.
Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen?
Yes.
When there's 152mm 100lb shrapnel artillery bombs dropping all around you, the only safe location is inside of 200mm+ thick steel plates.
Or what? Are you going to hide inside of a trench all day, or get into a thin APC / IFV and get shredded before you even reach the front lines?
Armor still matters. The whole MLRS debate has demonstrated that the powers-that-be are worried about the artillery battle above all else (as is common in war, those 20km guns are called "the king of battle" for a reason).
Advancing, or retreating, to positions while 100lb shrapnel bombs scatter around you is only possible when inside of armor. APCs/IFVs have a bit, but Tanks have the most.
------
Walking around, on foot, with only a helmet and some kevlar is nothing compared to the amount of shrapnel that is in play in any of those warzones. The shear number of 152mm artillery rounds being used is insane, and plainly obvious from the terrain in any footage I've seen.
-------
Tanks also remain the largest direct-fire gun on the battlefield, and have repeatedly proven their usefulness. Drones fly at 50mph and can take 10+ minutes to reach position. (Air Force/support flies faster, but also has 10+ minutes of delay as the pilots prep and launch).
Artillery fires at much higher speeds, but still takes 1 to 2 minutes for the shell to land.
Tank guns? They fire and land near instantly upon the target. If you need immediate fire support, the only solution is a tank. All other forms of support have a significant delay. All other guns are way smaller (ex: Sniper Rifles or Browning Machine Guns can't kill enemy tanks, for example).
9 replies →
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.
Would you prefer to climb into a IFV or a pickup-based technical instead?
Even with all the drawbacks and vulnerabilities, tanks have more staying power than other vehicles, and if you need to do an offensive where it's expected that quite a few of you will die no matter if you advance in vehicles or on foot (peer-level war it's not like insurgent control where having casualties implies a mistake or failure on someone's part) then tanks are the vehicles which allow your to continue advancing while taking fire and some vehicles are lost; a APC company or bunch of technicals can only evade and retreat when meeting serious resistance; tanks are needed to be able to punch through.
> 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.
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.
You had such a chance to say "first started to fall from its saddle..."
"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.
Yep that’s one of those seemingly simple words I always fuck up for some reason.
Possibly-useful technique: think of air cav/armored cav—airborne (helicopter) or armored (tanks etc.) cavalry. No such thing as air calv.
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
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.
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..
>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>). 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
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).
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.
2 replies →
> 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.
> That was a negotiating tactic.
Afraid not, he was really going to do it:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
2 replies →
All good apart from that euro part at the end - 2% required contribution doesnt bite into social spending in any meaningful way, not in fully working economy.
We in europe simply value quality of life of whole population more than individual income.
Germans (and some other western EU states) fucked up this, no point arguing there. Self-trauma from WWII that even Putin said should be left in the past.
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.