Also consider the Russians are totally inept in this conflict. I don’t think very many saw this coming. I don’t believe the Russian military could have anticipated this scenario. It’s amazing how much armor is being destroyed/abandoned.
However , the purpose for which they were designed (Control of the seas) is something they are no longer capable of doing.
They have been relegated to shore bombardment. All of that armor is no longer needed.
There are trade off in armor design. Keep adding steel to up the protection means you have to up engine, and up fuel. More space is needed now you are larger. Logistics kicks in. The increased weight means fewer bridges are available so your route becomes predictable. The heavier, the more prone environmental issues become like mud. To counter the armor threat the next generation of anti tank missile becomes two part instead of one. You have a larger rocket motor and a larger warhead. Two guys instead of one. not that big of a deal. You can not win by over armoring. You need a new direction. Tanks are an important target. Personal carriers and scout vehicles are low level targets in comparison. Why not spend less resources and build more low level targets with higher capibilities?
Using a $3,ooo,ooo drone to knock out a $500,000 vehicle is not cost effective in the long run,
pretty expensive and a pain to machine. There’s also a magnesium / titanium alloy that is even worse. A British firm first developed the aluminium / titanium alloy, and then virtually killed it off by keeping the tooling a secret. Japanese have something similar as well. The real issue is machining it. Titanium wants a completely different set of tools than aluminium, and when you combine the two; nothing works well. I cut it with a diamond jet and wire edm without much trouble. Does not work on a milling machine very well.
A study of the typical RPG war head will tell you another story. The warhead is made different than a typical war head. Yet works the same way. Something soft causes it problems verses something hard and tough (armor plate). It hates any form of spaced armor. This is probably why the Russians put the bags on the outside of tanks thinking they were going to be hit by RPG’s instead a typical NLAW or better. The bane of all this fancy alloy metal is the good old recoilless rifle! A 75mm will work on much of the known armor (not all).
gary
2 Likes
This is actually the 1st real land combat, major conflict since the Gulf War 30 years ago.
And how far has technology changed / progressed since then.
The tank might be a victim of this or it might come out the other side so different we would barely recognize it. Like a Tesla sitting next to a Model T.
I don’t know, but it seems like we actually witnessing a significant change in how war is going to be fought, like what happen in WW1 …
if your post was spot on (not saying it isn’t), then the old M551 would be the ticket. Of course it’s not. Had they made it of steel the results would still be similar. The big low velocity gun is important, but that old gun / launcher was a joke. The idea was right but also quite ill designed.
I think the day is nearer than most think when we’ll see crewless tanks that are simply robotic. Of course they’ll need an auto loader that works well. A thermo-magnetic main gun in the 90mm range is all that’s needed to open the hull of a conventional tank like a can opener when your thinking thermo-magnetics. There is very little recoil, and nothing inside to catch fire. Right now the power supply is the issue
gary
It really is unique in what we’re seeing because bear in mind that tanks and AFVs often travel faster than a soldier can run with a heavy ATGM to get in place for a shot. Hence the attack helicopter to chase tanks down. That is why Javelin has a range of just under three miles for long-range hits so that the soldier carrying 49-pound Javelin doesn’t have to get so close to fire a shot. But the soldier has to first see the enemy tank. I think that could inexcusably explain why Russia is targeting so many high rise apartment buildings for fear to ATGM teams in them commanding the high ground view.
The ability to have a soldier in place, line up an ATGM against a moving target is somewhat remote, and to repeat another hit is also remote. Hence the soldier seeks the higher ground to have a much better view. But most times tanks are moving too fast to be sitting out there for ATGM shots so it’s really lucky to get a hit, even with tracking on. Urban warfare is another matter. Some rockets like the AT-4 fly super-fast to ensure a hit.
So we’re seeing Russian tanks and AFVs bunched up and in columns to ensure an ATGM hit. Most times tanks will move too fast to be in the Kill Zone for long. Hence the Loitering Munition that can fly higher and seek and kill enemy tanks. The USA didn’t provide many Loitering Munitions (100 compared to thousands of ATGMs) so the Ukrainian soldier still has to carry, run, and line up a shot—has to do work to ensure a hit. A Loitering Munition will make things easier and that is what the US Marine Corps wants to do. However, bear in mind that eight Loitering Munitions on a LAV-M isn’t going to win any wars if one doesn’t have many more vehicles carrying Loitering Munitions—and that is the problem with drones as each drone or Munition requires a pilot and officers fear a future where soldiers and Marines will be glued to a screen and joysticks and no one will have time enough to carry, aim, and fire a carbine and rifle = all sitting ducks flying drones, forgetting their self-protective/self-defense bubble. And that is what still makes the tank still dangerous because it has armor and weapons to protect itself…ATGMs and drones mainly have range and surprise for protection.
News reports show that Russia has captured Javelins, NLAWs, and Panzerfaust 3s from attacked and abandoned Ukrainian bases so high-tech ATGM Western technology is now in Russian hands. With Russian sanctions, I kind of doubt that the Russians can copy Western ATGM microchips, even if they make them domestically…but that’s where China comes in and President Biden warned China that the USA will be watching if any assistance is rendered.
Also bear in mind that nations need to be able to afford these high-tech tracking ATGMs and unguided rockets and initially Ukraine didn’t have enough. Not every nation in the world might receive gifts of high-tech weapons like Ukraine.
The Iraqi Army received M1A1 Abrams tanks, but the Afghan Army, despite how long a 20-year war, did not receive any US tanks and the M1117 ASV was the highest level of armor that the Afghan Army got…and for good reason because the Taliban captured practically everything not destroyed or evacuated. And these foreign M1A1 tanks don’t come with the Chobham/Burlington armor and the best FLIR gun sights that US Army tanks do.
1 Like
True enough – you mean the Missouri I guess. I recall very impressive footage of it in full broadside mode, but the fleet of accompanying vessels required to service & protect it not so much. And only deployable with complete air superiority. In fact the same swarm tactic we’re talking about was used nearly 80 years ago with devastating effect against naval power – kamikazes. Today, no suicide required.
most folks don’t know it, or fail to believe it; a generic M113 hull was capable of handling the typical 105mm or 4.2" command detonated mine. A typical 155mm round would shred it. A classic Teller mine would also shred it and probably flip it. The first would usually fail to crack the hull, and that makes it usually rebuildable. My first trip to Chu Lai with a howitzer in tow showed me this. There was a pile of M48’s (literally). Outside the building was a pile of tracks. One pile was nothing but M48’s and the other was M113’s. The M48’s were piled three high! They all had the same disease. About a 4" or 5" gap between the lower hull and the hull top just to the driver’s left. I asked the guy meeting with us what happened and he said it was a 155mm dud round turned into a mine. Then I looked at the M113’s, and he said they’s wait till they got a dozen or so, and send them off to be rebuilt. That same pile of 48’s was there a year later, but stacked four high! Scared me to death! The guy said most of the Marine tracks came from near Fat City (the original Fat City). Thinking about this, I came to the conclusion the the local boys plated their mines in the dead center of the road.
Later in life, I learned a second lesson real fast. I was riding atop an ACAV headed west towards home. All of a sudden everybody came to a grinding halt! Then everybody but the drive and TC got off and walked. There on the side of the road were several expended recoilless rifle cases. I didn’t know what they were, and a couple guys told me what they were and what they could do to a tank! I only road on a tank one other time after that.
gary
5 Likes
Absolutely true; I was rebutting the notion that they were obsolete by the end of WWII, not that they were eventually obsolete anyway. They were too old, too slow and required a LOT of very specialized crew and parts that were simply not worth it after Desert Storm. I’ve been aboard 3 of the 4 Iowas and they are no better than targets now. Pretty sure Aircraft Carriers (in their current form) are becoming obsolete nowadays as drones get better and better.
1 Like
This x1000. The tank is no different than any other weapon in that anti-tank technology is constantly changing thus making it imperative for the tank to stay ahead of the game. Infantry and tanks are for the most part co-dependent on the battlefield with one supporting the other. The Americans found that out real quick after landing in Normandy as the Germans were armed with Anti-Tank weapons such as the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. Tank support will always be required to support infantry and vice versa.
2 Likes
Interesting read! Seriously… you should write a book on your experiences in country.
1 Like
I’m under the opinion that nothing has changed all that much for the last 120 years. Weapons got better and a nerd in the background figured a way to over come it. You build a grade a piece of armor, and somebody will figure out a way to get around it. Example: The Tiger tank from WWII. They captured one, and studied it for well over two months. Took it all the way apart and reassembled it, and just couldn’t find a way to crack the hull. Then one day they were setting around eating lunch, and one guy looked up and saw the solution. It was in the rear and not the front. I knew that guy!
gary
2 Likes
Without getting too political here, I think that infantry’s commitment into any conflict just doesn’t “cut it” compared to shipping heavy armor with big guns over, hence the relevance of tanks and AFVs.
Or, Star Wars Stormtroopers are everywhere, but it’s the AT-ATs and AT-STs that show that the Empire means business. Or in Star Trek folklore, the Federation is everywhere, but unless a Federation shuttle or a starship shows up, eh, who cares about a few of Feddie scientists with a handful of phasers? Powerful weapons and sizes has a way of gaining respect.
Case in point, the US special forces and soldiers in Syria with M-ATVs were bullied by Russian BTR 8x8s. You may do that against tactical trucks, but you won’t do that against a tank. A tank commands more respect because it can roll over tactical trucks.
1 Like
Nobody ever said… “I wish we didn’t have these tanks here with us.”
3 Likes
Tanks and infantry have to work as a team, with one taking the lead over the other when the tactical situations dictate. Unsupported infantry or armor tends to get chopped up when their enemy has a proper combined arms element.
Certainly it’s hard to imagine any kind of land-grab where tanks don’t figure, tanks & infantry combined. But their vulnerability was probably first demonstrated in ’44 at the Falaise gap where convoys of German vhicles of all kinds were obliterated by Allied air superiority. Dominance of air power being the key on land, sea and obviously in the air itself.
Today “air superiority” has become less clear – I’d like to hope there have been wargames played out where two identical opposing forces square off with a variety of tanks, AFVs & mobile air-defences. One side has a variety of ground attack aircraft, the other a variety of ground-attack-capable drones.
Who wins? 
2 Likes
I would venture that the winning side has the more survivable air assets. If airpower is going to tip the balance with all other things being equal, whichever side that can deny their enemy the high ground is likely to be victorious. Ground attack aircraft can often have a secondary air to air capability, either with guns or missiles. Drones don’t have that sort of situational awareness, and would be dependent upon an AWACS type platform to add such capability.
3 Likes
OK good point about aircraft’s air-to-air advantage – but have they ever tried shooting down drones? Not a rhetorical question, it’s a genuine question. In fact flipping that around, can drones shoot down aircraft now? There’s also the loiter capability - my admittedly elementary understanding of loiter-ness seems to favour drones, although granted relays of aircraft could perform a similar role.
Yes, the Israelis have knocked down some Hezbollah drones out of Lebanon with fighters and (probable) Apaches. I’ve seen the footage. Hell, going back to Vietnam, some of the first VPAF kills were US Firebee recon drones. Drones have been aerial training targets for pilots since the late 40’s at least.
As far as drones knocking down manned aircraft? That’s where the situational awareness would come into play. Most drones today are slow plodding loitering types, not designed for air combat maneuvering, or having air to air munitions. Perhaps the next iteration of the USN’s X-47 UAV will have that capability.
1 Like