holoween

Can they stop it with the Wehrmacht markings?  You can still fight the Russians.

There's no hyperventilation here, mate.
Know your enemy and know yourself, and in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
Notice there's two sides to that aphorism, and swapping Western for Ukrainian agency is the kind of paternalistic thinking that has been at the root of the previous Western failures.
@Maciej Zwolinski made the critical point above; full marks to Zaluzhny and UA command for Ukraine's operational successes to date! but the conditions that made those possible cannot be relied upon going forward.
'Well then, they'll think of something else* cuz Zaluzhny is Supah Geeeenius' is kind of the mirror image of the 'Cuz Russia Sux' fallacy, which is a trap you yourself have rightly warned of.  So let's not echo chamber here, nobody is rushing for the smelling salts but there is a limit to Ukrainian capability (Will is only a part of it) that is worth probing.
* someone just suggested a 'backhand blow' near Torske, and I very much hope they're right!
...As to Ukraine being a far better strategic investment for the West than Iraq and A'stan, sure enough (I'm attempting to take that bet myself 😉).
But OTOH, ask the Iraqi Kurds what courage, hardiness, loyalty and social cohersion did for them in the end, being surrounded by powerful enemies their US sponsors feared to offend too much.  Or the Free Syria Army, the Marsh Arabs, Hmong and Montagnards before them....
Anyhoo, this is a far more interesting line discussion IMHO than still more Tanx n Krautz blahblahblah.  Carry on schooling us (or ignore us if we're tiresome), but we will feel free to push back.

Ok so uranuim enrichment is now a military installation?
Just wondering about the actual distinction you want to make because once you open up from only uniformed soldiers being military targets you quickly run into a slippery slope where eventually your oponents population is a military target because they could contribute to a war effort.

Every simgle civilian can be conscripted into an army so therefore its ok to kill civilians.
That is the "it can be" argument at its final form. Everyone agrees its an aweful idea so therefore where is the line.

Ok so uranuim enrichment is now a military installation?
Just wondering about the actual distinction you want to make because once you open up from only uniformed soldiers being military targets you quickly run into a slippery slope where eventually your oponents population is a military target because they could contribute to a war effort.

Yes, when a Russian fakes surrender to blow himself up with a grenade, then it's a war crime, but when a Ukrainian does it, he's a hero...

Do you like arguing strawmen or do you simply not read what i write?
To requote myself
 
To clarify my overall position. I think this war is the best study case for a peer war in the near future and wed be well served carefully analyzing it and taking its lessons to heart.
 
And in regards to AFVs there are 2 overarching lessons learned
1. AFVs are vulnerable
2. AFVs are essential for offensive operations
The first lesson learned really doesnt need further explaination just look at the losses
The second one aparently does need so lets deal with that.
 
The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.
The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.
What tanks do is provide the firepower to get infantry onto an objective. They also provide supression via the threat of applying their firepower but thats a secondary effect they share with several other weapons systems. Their morale effect obviously decreases with at weapons available for the oponent but if they dont have any that can on its own win the fight.
This is the core reason why tanks exist now for over 100 years and are quite likely to continue existing for quite some time. Id love to see your argument for how this is weird twisted logic and what your suggested replacement is and please tell ukraine aswell because right now theyre still asking for tanks.
 
Im not going in detail over the rest of the post because it basically boils down to whatever you can think of to kill the tank it usually kills infantry easier and at greater rate, AFVs evolve with the threats, Soldiers dont.
 

Do you like arguing strawmen or do you simply not read what i write?
To requote myself
 
To clarify my overall position. I think this war is the best study case for a peer war in the near future and wed be well served carefully analyzing it and taking its lessons to heart.
 
And in regards to AFVs there are 2 overarching lessons learned
1. AFVs are vulnerable
2. AFVs are essential for offensive operations
The first lesson learned really doesnt need further explaination just look at the losses
The second one aparently does need so lets deal with that.
 
The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.
The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.
What tanks do is provide the firepower to get infantry onto an objective. They also provide supression via the threat of applying their firepower but thats a secondary effect they share with several other weapons systems. Their morale effect obviously decreases with at weapons available for the oponent but if they dont have any that can on its own win the fight.
This is the core reason why tanks exist now for over 100 years and are quite likely to continue existing for quite some time. Id love to see your argument for how this is weird twisted logic and what your suggested replacement is and please tell ukraine aswell because right now theyre still asking for tanks.
 
Im not going in detail over the rest of the post because it basically boils down to whatever you can think of to kill the tank it usually kills infantry easier and at greater rate, AFVs evolve with the threats, Soldiers dont.
 

Do you like arguing strawmen or do you simply not read what i write?
To requote myself
 
To clarify my overall position. I think this war is the best study case for a peer war in the near future and wed be well served carefully analyzing it and taking its lessons to heart.
 
And in regards to AFVs there are 2 overarching lessons learned
1. AFVs are vulnerable
2. AFVs are essential for offensive operations
The first lesson learned really doesnt need further explaination just look at the losses
The second one aparently does need so lets deal with that.
 
The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.
The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.
What tanks do is provide the firepower to get infantry onto an objective. They also provide supression via the threat of applying their firepower but thats a secondary effect they share with several other weapons systems. Their morale effect obviously decreases with at weapons available for the oponent but if they dont have any that can on its own win the fight.
This is the core reason why tanks exist now for over 100 years and are quite likely to continue existing for quite some time. Id love to see your argument for how this is weird twisted logic and what your suggested replacement is and please tell ukraine aswell because right now theyre still asking for tanks.
 
Im not going in detail over the rest of the post because it basically boils down to whatever you can think of to kill the tank it usually kills infantry easier and at greater rate, AFVs evolve with the threats, Soldiers dont.
 

Do you like arguing strawmen or do you simply not read what i write?
To requote myself
 
To clarify my overall position. I think this war is the best study case for a peer war in the near future and wed be well served carefully analyzing it and taking its lessons to heart.
 
And in regards to AFVs there are 2 overarching lessons learned
1. AFVs are vulnerable
2. AFVs are essential for offensive operations
The first lesson learned really doesnt need further explaination just look at the losses
The second one aparently does need so lets deal with that.
 
The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.
The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.
What tanks do is provide the firepower to get infantry onto an objective. They also provide supression via the threat of applying their firepower but thats a secondary effect they share with several other weapons systems. Their morale effect obviously decreases with at weapons available for the oponent but if they dont have any that can on its own win the fight.
This is the core reason why tanks exist now for over 100 years and are quite likely to continue existing for quite some time. Id love to see your argument for how this is weird twisted logic and what your suggested replacement is and please tell ukraine aswell because right now theyre still asking for tanks.
 
Im not going in detail over the rest of the post because it basically boils down to whatever you can think of to kill the tank it usually kills infantry easier and at greater rate, AFVs evolve with the threats, Soldiers dont.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

yea but for the locking on process at the very least they have to be exposed. watch the video i linked. they are in an ambush position waiting for the bmp2 and are exposed for some time because they dont just go from being in full cover to locking on to full cover again. and at the quoted 350m even on 2nd gen thermals they are glowing dots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJSfEEdV76k
if they have to move youre even going to find small teams and even if you dont to attack you need more than just a small team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
To give some idea what kind of accuracy were talking about in this video im aiming at the trees with inert rounds. They are max around 30cm thick and im opening fire at 1500m hitting them reliably. If i spot a target i have no problem getting an he round close enough to cause them significant problems.
but you cant see every point from every point out to 2500m or differently put terrain exists and interferes with theoretical max range otherwise the tank beats the atgm in range any time.
you know the tanks are 20km back from the frontline. They can relocate at 60km/h so any place at roughly an 80 km long frontline is in the 1 hour timeframe for an attack.
no because there is a limit to where infantry that wants to live can actually be.
NLOS atgms are functionally similar to guided artillery except they are easier to intercept. And a walking mine is far less scary than a normal hidden mine because if it walks towards me i can see it. additionally you dont know where i will attack so how many millions of walking mines do you want to spread over the entire border to be able to intercept an attack and why arent dumb mines cheaper and easier for the same purpose?
yea
no
I really wonder how their tanks moce and shoot if they are dismounted
You might want to talk to literally any infantryman who wants to live
light infantry moves at 4km/h sustained rate especially if you load them with loads of atgms
if your defense cant even stand up to a simple light infantry company you might want to reevaluate your choice of defense.
Or differently said if your defense cant stopp light infantry from attacking then Your oponent doesnt even need to use anything else. Only once you mass enough combat power to prevent this does he need to do more.

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

So for the question of tanks being obsolete.
What is a tank supposed to do?
Why cant it do that currently?
Why does this not apply to other AFVs?
What do you replace it with?

I cant speak for the Abrams but id be surprised if its much different.
The issue the Poles had were more that they were sold for very cheap with the agreement that KMW gets to do all upgrades. The Poles want to do their own which KMW sais they have to certify with them which the Poles dont like hence the switch.
If they really didnt like them why would they ask for more during the Ringtausch programm?

Since all my hands on knoledge of the t72 comes from steel beasts i dont feel qualified to give a indepth comparison.
Lack of reverse speed is probably the t72s biggest failing. lack of thermals is equally significant. laser dot not being in line with the primary sight really limits long range engagement speed and moving target accuracy. Biggest quality is probably the HE-FRAG rounds. they make them far more effective vs infantry targets compared to 120mm HEAT. 120mm HE airburst will flip that but that isnt in widespread use.
Agreed
The issue with snorkeling is there are only limited places where its even viable. For germany they were mapped out during the cold war but ukraine? if not you need specialists that know how to scout a site and prepare it. Bridging equipment seems like a better way to go at least generally.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiler_(Panzer)
We use speciualized equipment for specialized jobs. The tank you posted isnt going to go at any speed during an attack so youre spending far more time in the open. If you know there is a minefield breaching it with a specialized vehicle is better.
Leo2 is actually equipped for indirect fire. Noone ever trains it but its in the manuals.

So for the question of tanks being obsolete.
What is a tank supposed to do?
Why cant it do that currently?
Why does this not apply to other AFVs?
What do you replace it with?

Since all my hands on knoledge of the t72 comes from steel beasts i dont feel qualified to give a indepth comparison.
Lack of reverse speed is probably the t72s biggest failing. lack of thermals is equally significant. laser dot not being in line with the primary sight really limits long range engagement speed and moving target accuracy. Biggest quality is probably the HE-FRAG rounds. they make them far more effective vs infantry targets compared to 120mm HEAT. 120mm HE airburst will flip that but that isnt in widespread use.
Agreed
The issue with snorkeling is there are only limited places where its even viable. For germany they were mapped out during the cold war but ukraine? if not you need specialists that know how to scout a site and prepare it. Bridging equipment seems like a better way to go at least generally.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiler_(Panzer)
We use speciualized equipment for specialized jobs. The tank you posted isnt going to go at any speed during an attack so youre spending far more time in the open. If you know there is a minefield breaching it with a specialized vehicle is better.
Leo2 is actually equipped for indirect fire. Noone ever trains it but its in the manuals.

I cannot get over how right this sentence is.  Bring them into NATO - arm the living daylights out of them.  Get them to teach us about corrosive warfare and unmanned systems.  But all of this is post-war or if this war goes on for 2-3 years, do it in parallel.
This, is deterrence.

Regarding the "death of the tank", I'm just listening to a Twitter room with general Jarosław Gromadziński, who used to be a commander of 18th Mechanized Division (one that is being rearmed with M1s), and now is vice-chief of Ukraine Defence Contact Group. You might assume that he knows a thing or two about tanks, and how these work in UA from sources other than accessible to us. And his points are:
- war in Ukraine proved that the tanks is anything but dead, in fact tanks are indispensible and form a core of any serious action
- the tactics of tank usage have changed and times of whole battalions rolling through an open field are definitely over, but there's no offensive operations without tanks
- regarding Polish army adaptation of K2, he favors the "light" for the future K2PL, sacrificing some (side) armour for mobility
- hard-kill APS is a must and non-negotiable going forward
The whole discussion was about something else and these points weren't argued for, but he treated them as axioms when answering other questions.
Edit: 
He made an interesting indiscretion - according to him, there's more than 600 NATO-caliber artillery pieces in Ukraine at the moment. That is way more that I thought, I was placing the number at ~400.