dan/california

In this war that is August, if not sooner. 

Here's a CNN report from today detailing extensive Russian torture and sexual violence in occupied Ukrainian territories. It's not an easy read. This is what Ukrainians have to look forward to if they give up. This is what other Eastern Europeans have to look forward to if we do not stand strong with NATO.
Survivors say Russia is waging a war of sexual violence in occupied areas of Ukraine. Men are often the victims | CNN

I think that’s totally fair. FPV drones by their very nature are the most media-friendly weapon ever designed, and there’s certainly massive selection bias due to this. However, the reports you read from the front are that drones are a huge problem, and are forcing troops to walk to the front on both sides because vehicles have a high chance of getting destroyed because of the proliferation and range of the damn things.
There is some latency, but that’s honestly least concern because there always some to be another observation drone up in the sky, and that will let you see the vehicles approaching say 15 minutes before, and your drone latency is 5 minutes, and the vehicles will only be able to fire in the last 5 minutes LOS. Obviously that’s hand wavy, but ISR is what allows the drones to efficiently be dispatched, and ISR is the thing (to me) that makes the tank dead when combined with cheap weapons.
Yeah, but most FPV drones are COTS with an RPG warhead or a brick of HE. You start putting a Javelin warhead (ie Switchblade 600) and I suspect things look different. That said, plastering a robust vehicle with ERA is certainly a mitigation, and I think passive measures like these are much better bang for the buck than APS.
As I’ve almost certainly said in the last few hundred pages, I have two points of disagreement:
120mm gun with LOS Rapidly to position The former I think replaced with a NLOS option, say a breech-loading mortar or mini howizter is more flexible. You still get the direct fire option, but you also signficantly extend your range and use cases, particularly around quickly delivering precision munitions.
The latter is the real killer for all future weapons systems: What is the probability of survival while you get to position and deliver whatever effect you are trying to deliver? You have a big noisy hot target you need to get to within LOS of a target, and there is ISR everywhere.
EDIT: TLDR persistent ISR combined with cheap, flexible weapons makes tanks obsolete in terms of $$$ for boom

One big post-1973 war that involved thousands of tanks was the Iran-Iraq war. Does anyone know how tanks performed then? I know there was criticism that "they weren't using them right" but I just don't know the details. 

Very good points.  I can recall some of these debates as a young (and svelter) sprog back in the day.  Add to this, the Former Yugoslavia where tanks played a supporting mobile gun role at best. The answer was “Well those are not real wars.  In a real war you will see.”  Well I think can all agree that this is a “real” war.  Further it is a war on terrain tailor made for mechanized warfare.  Most of our western tanks were originally designed to fight other tanks on terrain nearly identical to what we see in Southern Ukraine - seriously, bust out Google Maps and take a look at the rolling open countryside.
Military folks are a pretty conservative bunch, led by the most conservative of them - old men.  So it is not surprising that we see a lot of caution and skepticism.  I think it is healthy to be honest.  But while I have written pages on where this thing looks like it may be going, I am straining to find a role for heavy going forward.  “Hard-points”, ok but that is still HE in the right location that is currently being delivered well by other systems.  “Breakout”, ok, but why not go lighter and faster? If I need a drone swarm to setup for breakout…why push heavy metal up?  Why not keep pushing with the swarm.  “Combined arms” sure, but I suspect that we are looking at the emergence of a new combined arms.  “It will rebalance.”  Ok, but that is really a ‘hope’ statement without any real evidence to back it up.
The battleship was pushed into a shore bombardment role and then eventually got broken up between aircraft, subs and missile cruisers. I suspect the tank is going to go through the same sort of evolution.  Yes, people have said the tank was obsolete before…but here is the thing, one day they will be right.  So is today that day?

Again, here is the thing…maybe they were.  We never tested our c-ATGM doctrines beyond exercises in Europe…and shockingly the mighty tank (we had spent billions on) was still relevant.  Much like the lessons observed in the wars leading up to WW1 we basically ignored stuff that did not fit our model.  If that model was never truly tested, and it wasn’t, then one cannot simply say “ well tanks were relevant because we kept using them”.  I mean, sure, human history of warfare is not full of examples of us hanging onto military capability well past its expiry date…he says reading about cavalry wearing shiny armor in WW1.
And then there is the inconvenient fact that ATGM technology developed a lot in the last 50 years while the tank really hasn’t evolved that much.  We stuck on some better armor and a computer in the gun.  They also got larger, heavier and burn more gas.  APS was about the only major development and it is lagging ATGM capability, let alone drones.
Then in 1991 we had one of the largest confirmation bias events in military history.  We looked at the Gulf War and said “the system works!”  While conveniently missing the fact that the Gulf War was not a peer-on-peer conflict.  We beat up a one eyed goat with developmental challenges and went “see, now let’s spend another few trillion on this stuff.”
And then when we saw weird stuff happening in places like Chechnya, Nagorno Karbak, and Ukraine…we went “silly Soviet doctrine”.  So going all the way back to the last real peer on peer tank actions we see the major impact of small, smart and precise missiles and go “meh, Israel still won and we kept using them…so they must still work.”
Tanks may have been put on the endangered species list back in 1973 but we ignored it.  Here we are in 2024 watching all sorts of weird evidence over a two year period and the analysis is still. “Meh, Ukraine is winning enough…they must still work…we will keep using them.”  Probably the last thing Austro-Hungarian Cavalry said after shining their breast plates in 1914.
For me this war is an Ostfreisland moment, and frankly I think it is for most modern militaries.  And what happens next will likely follow the same pattern:
”The leadership of the US Navy, however, was outraged by Mitchell's handling of the tests; the 2,000 lb bombs had not been sanctioned by the Navy, which had set the rules for the engagement. Mitchell's bombers had also not allowed inspectors aboard the ship between bombing runs as stipulated by the Navy. The joint Army–Navy report on the tests, issued a month later and signed by General John J. Pershing, stated that "the battleship is still the backbone of the fleet."[62] Mitchell wrote his own, contradictory account of the tests, which was then leaked to the press. The sinking of the battleship sparked great controversy in the American public sphere; Mitchell's supporters exaggerated the significance of the tests by falsely claiming Ostfriesland to be an unsinkable "super-battleship" and that "old sea dogs ... wept aloud."[62] Senator William Borah argued that the tests had rendered battleships obsolete. Mitchell was widely supported in the press, though his increasingly combative tactics eventually resulted in a court-martial for insubordination that forced him to retire from the military.[63]”
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Ostfriesland

US government sets target of 100.000 shells per months until the end of 2025, with a new plant by General Dynamics opening to produce 30.000 per month.
 
 

In my view the Kharkiv situation was a bit of a surprise to everyone and it was pretty much improvised. SOF / humvees happening to be the fastest things available and therefore used while mech units were held in the event of a potential counter thrust. (I do recall tanks being used though, especially to help clean up anything left over) My overall impression was Ukraine wanted to go as fast as possible to exploit a potentially narrow window and this came at a cost of a more organised armoured offensive. 

Certainly food for though when it comes to the future war and the implications for how it might be waged. I imagine a lot of data crunchers will be very busy for the next ten years...

Two things, 90 plus percent of the drones in Ukraine are just civilian grade stuff the has literally had an RPG warhead with a fiddled fuse taped to it. Spare a thought for the people doing that job. They cost a $1000 or less. If it takes twenty of them to kill an MBT, that is still a war winning exchange.
Secondly, the next generation of drones are not going to be hacktivists creative art projects. The are going to be murderous little kamikazes that are purpose built for the task, and have warheads that will punch through any armor that is ever going to move under its own power. Even if they come in a $5000, and takes five of them per tank, it is an exchange rate that will run heavy armor right off the battlefield.
 

The interesting thing about heavily armored knights is that they went through exactly the same cycle we are watching heavy mechanized forces go through now. They kept getting heavier, more expensive, fewer, and less usable in many types of terrain. Pikes, better bows, halberds, and better tactics, used by better trained infantry, had made them far less important even before gunpowder changed everything. 

Or I am trying find a useful role for hardware we already spent billions on? The damned things are bought and paid for.  Pretty sad when one has to do both sides of an argument though.
A mid-range integrated indirect fires platform has some real promise at least in the short term.  There are the logistical considerations but the payoff of more rapid precision fires might be worth it…might.  I suspect it will get squeezed out eventually but watching both the Russians and Ukrainians in this war, it is a concept I would take for a spin.

Hey some of us have a brain cell or two And have figured out how to use archaic communication systems. I believe this place may be older than I am.

wow, now that is a proper post.  Going against the grain but backing it up with some interesting facts (assuming the facts are correct).  I suspect this will stir up some excellent discussion.

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

I think the entire Russian plan assumed that U.S. aid wasn't coming, and then they launched it before they were ready because they were trying to make real gains before the aid showed up. They failed, expensively.
 

In my view replacing the 120mm gun with a 105mm howitzer is the way to go. Powerful HE, 17+km range, lots of rounds in the vehicle and the option of direct fire if required. The fragments are not great against heavy vehicles but drones, 120mm mortars, 155mm, ATGMs etc can deal with them anyway. 
Tank on tank engagements are basically over. No point in carrying a hyper-specialised APFSD thrower any more: carry a heavy atgm (possibly hypersonic) as a backup weapon for that rare engagement just in case.

There are several kills attributed to R37. The reports seem fairly reliable, as they occurred in areas without Russian SAM coverage.

As far as I know the only long range AA missile Russia has, is the r-37, which i don't how many they have in stock, since it's a pretty new missile. They have the old r-77 which should be less capable than the newer versions of the aim-120. There should be the new R-77-1 version which it's used with the su-57, but honestly, after the "mighty" t-14 armata, i have my doubts that these new missiles will ever be producted in good numbers (or even producted at all)

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.
European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.
1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.
2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,
3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 
 

It all depends on whether Ukrainian personnel have received training or not. Flying the thing should be easy enough for an existing pilot, as it's no combat aircraft. Likewise, maintaining the aircraft should be reasonably easy, in comparison to those snowflake fighters. But using and maintaining the AWACS systems? I dunno, but I suspect it'll take longer than a couple of hours in a classroom to get proficient. Multiple months to learn the systems. Maybe years to get expert.
So, unless the training has already occurred, I can't see these being operational soon.
There is one way around this of course. Swedish personnel could be part of the package as, erm, on-premises trainers, so to speak.
Don't get me wrong, still good news and very generous from the Swedes. Just don't expect them to pop up next Monday 😀    

I will admit I have often wondered how this war might have been different if Ukraine had been able to complete the An-71 "Madcap" program on its own after the breakup of the USSR (admittedly an implausible scenario, since it had a Russian radar)...

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

Indeed! Except “sudden” was never a credible possibility and certainly not my point. 
I think everyone serious here agrees with your conclusion - the feasible and effective pace wasn’t at either extreme. I’m not aware anyone is arguing that the pace has been too fast over the past two years. But there are reasonable arguments that politics have slowed the process more than military realities.
The point I made is that I don’t believe there are or were any singular “silver bullets”. Or wooden stakes. The F-16 will help Ukraine. A version equivalent to the Block 50/52 Viper is a damn fine strike fighter! (I wouldn’t expect much ATA engagements in the current environment). But as capable and plentiful as the F-16 is, I’m pretty sure most here aren’t expecting it to single-handedly freeze the Russian force in Ukraine. Let alone win the war. If there were a decisive advantage permitting Ukraine to push the invaders back at least to their starting lines, it surely would have been that combination of integrated Western systems we have seen to be so deadly in other conflicts. Not any one of them, alone.  But even that time may have passed, and who knows what political realities the USA elections will bring. The newer systems employed by Russia and Ukraine - omnipresent drones, improved ISR, etc  have significantly strengthened the defense over the offense.  Pages and pages of posts here argue strongly that the new battlefield reality is making most countries’ war-fighting apparatus and methods obsolete or nearly so. That, who is wearing down faster, and what this all means for Ukraine’s future is much of the discussion on the forum these days.