How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bil Hardenberger]

23 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Comments by some Ukrainian crews on the M1 Abrams tank. This is anecdata, obviously.

• Poor protection vs drones: “Its armor is not sufficient for this moment. It doesn’t protect the crew. For real, today this is the war of drones."
• Condensation is a powerful enemy?: "They also complain of how, in rain or fog, condensation can fry the electronics inside the vehicle."
• Ammunition performs poorly in the  anti-personnel role: “What we have is more for direct tank-to-tank fights, which happens very rarely. Much more often we work as artillery. You need to take apart a tree-line or a building. We had a case when we fired 17 rounds into a house and it was still standing.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/soldiers-ukraine-us-supplied-tanks-120146535.html

Saw that on CNN... https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/europe/ukraine-war-us-tanks-intl/index.html

Interesting and they are correct, the Abrams is only part of the US Army's battlefield system and is not meant to fight alone.  Goes right to @The_Capt's desk pounding that armored vehicles are really at a disadvantage in this type of fight.

Of course, we also didn't give them enough of them to really make a difference.

 

Edited May 29 by Bil Hardenberger

[The_Capt]

21 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Comments by some Ukrainian crews on the M1 Abrams tank. This is anecdata, obviously.

• Poor protection vs drones: “Its armor is not sufficient for this moment. It doesn’t protect the crew. For real, today this is the war of drones."
• Condensation is a powerful enemy?: "They also complain of how, in rain or fog, condensation can fry the electronics inside the vehicle."
• Ammunition performs poorly in the  anti-personnel role: “What we have is more for direct tank-to-tank fights, which happens very rarely. Much more often we work as artillery. You need to take apart a tree-line or a building. We had a case when we fired 17 rounds into a house and it was still standing.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/soldiers-ukraine-us-supplied-tanks-120146535.html

Yeesh and this is the M1.  Done thing makes sense because they can hit anywhere, MBTs were really designed to protect from ATGMs and other tanks from the front.

Condensation...weird.  These things were originally designed for central Europe.

And then there is that "tanks as artillery" thing again but now from the other side.

[holoween]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And then there is that "tanks as artillery" thing again but now from the other side.

From the description this sounds to me as if using them as artillery is simply firing HE at infantry rather than KE at vehicles. As opposed to using them for indirect fire we usually assume this means.

[Bil Hardenberger]

5 minutes ago, holoween said:

From the description this sounds to me as if using them as artillery is simply firing HE at infantry rather than KE at vehicles. As opposed to using them for indirect fire we usually assume this means.

I think I you’re right. This is how I read it too. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

38 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Comments by some Ukrainian crews on the M1 Abrams tank. This is anecdata, obviously.

• Poor protection vs drones: “Its armor is not sufficient for this moment. It doesn’t protect the crew. For real, today this is the war of drones."
• Condensation is a powerful enemy?: "They also complain of how, in rain or fog, condensation can fry the electronics inside the vehicle."
• Ammunition performs poorly in the  anti-personnel role: “What we have is more for direct tank-to-tank fights, which happens very rarely. Much more often we work as artillery. You need to take apart a tree-line or a building. We had a case when we fired 17 rounds into a house and it was still standing.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/soldiers-ukraine-us-supplied-tanks-120146535.html

Noted a bit of dissatisfaction with UA crews regarding anti-personal capability, which makes senses as most of the Western MBTs are firing HEAT rounds (HESH in the case of Chally 2)

I wonder if this is more to do with the fact that the Ukrainians are probably used to the Soviet tanks that usually come with both HEAT and Fragmentation rounds, the latter being a little better against personnel, at least from a few comments made by UA tankers. 

I do remember that Chally interview where they praised the HESH rounds demolition ability, even if it came at the cost of less trench clearing ability. Its a shame the AMP round has taken so long to come into service really. 

I would argue that no tank really offers sufficient protection from drones currently, certainly not without reducing the effectiveness in the tank in its primary mission role. (Looking at you turtle tanks)

[Eddy]

Colonel Reisner is back with a new vid. 

 

[Eddy]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:44 PM, danfrodo said:

So y'all, what do you think the F16s will do?

Here's is RUSI's Justin Bronk's take on F16s (vid should start at the correct place):

To me he overly fixates on the the hurdles of using F16s (fixates on the FOD Plod) and doesn't spend enough time exploring what it and the ordinance it carries can do. But, he's a Professor and I'm not so make your own mind up  

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

From the description this sounds to me as if using them as artillery is simply firing HE at infantry rather than KE at vehicles. As opposed to using them for indirect fire we usually assume this means.

Now if we could get a guided over the horizon PGM tank round with about 10kms range, we could be onto something.  Tanks are big and hot but 10kms out they would make effective mobile self propelled guns. They are already built for integration of fires.  Kinda of a line of steel in front of artillery but behind leading edge infantry/unmanned pairing.  Then if you can make a hole there is rapid precision long range fires able to move quickly.  Unless 10km is still too close.

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Now if we could get a guided over the horizon PGM tank round with about 10kms range, we could be onto something.  Tanks are big and hot but 10kms out they would make effective mobile self propelled guns. They are already built for integration of fires.  Kinda of a line of steel in front of artillery but behind leading edge infantry/unmanned pairing.  Then if you can make a hole there is rapid precision long range fires able to move quickly.  Unless 10km is still too close.

I feel at that point you might as well then use an SPG, the overlap is getting pretty strong at that point.

While we do see a growing tend that tanks in the conflict are standing off to use their guns from as long a distance as possible, there are still plenty of times where they are used at closer ranges either to spearhead and support infantry / mechanised attacks when they do happen. Plenty of accounts do state just how effective tank fire is when it comes down to it. They have incredible potential on the defensive and offensive. As Chieftain put it: There is always something of value about something tracked, mobile and armoured with a sizable gun that can more or less rapidly acquire and destroy a target while the majority of battlefield weapons are somewhat ineffective against it. 

With the correct use, tanks are still very much lethal, especially in short, sharp fire missions where they pull up, deliver their munitions then leave. The current trend of stand off shooting is more a consequence of the relative lack of true mechanised warfare going on at the moment (Seems to be more a focus on small attacks / wearing down actions)

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Seems Kerch just got hit, will post further if we get something tangible. 
 

 

[hcrof]

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I feel at that point you might as well then use an SPG, the overlap is getting pretty strong at that point.

While we do see a growing tend that tanks in the conflict are standing off to use their guns from as long a distance as possible, there are still plenty of times where they are used at closer ranges either to spearhead and support infantry / mechanised attacks when they do happen. Plenty of accounts do state just how effective tank fire is when it comes down to it. They have incredible potential on the defensive and offensive. As Chieftain put it: There is always something of value about something tracked, mobile and armoured with a sizable gun that can more or less rapidly acquire and destroy a target while the majority of battlefield weapons are somewhat ineffective against it. 

With the correct use, tanks are still very much lethal, especially in short, sharp fire missions where they pull up, deliver their munitions then leave. The current trend of stand off shooting is more a consequence of the relative lack of true mechanised warfare going on at the moment (Seems to be more a focus on small attacks / wearing down actions)

 

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.

[kimbosbread]

30 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

With the correct use, tanks are still very much lethal, especially in short, sharp fire missions where they pull up, deliver their munitions then leave.

 

Please elaborate on the correct use, especially the part where the tank can live long enough against $500-5000 drones that can attack from any angle from 10+km range, long before the tank has LOS to its target.

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, hcrof said:

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.

I want both.  A DF gun that is basically like a bayonet - rare use but if it comes down to it, you really want one.  But a lower caliber gun able to do rapid over the horizon precision fires, that is something that makes sense.  Artillery SPGs are for further back and lack the armor and mobility that tanks do, so 10-15kms rapidly moving and able to fire PGM rounds (105mm is just fine).  Then switch to HEAT, AP in a clinch...that is sounding like a solution.  Medium range fires that cannot be easily stopped on chassis with better mobility and survivability.  More of a rapid backfield mover.

 At least it is an interim plan.  I would definitely test it out.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Now if we could get a guided over the horizon PGM tank round with about 10kms range, we could be onto something.  Tanks are big and hot but 10kms out they would make effective mobile self propelled guns. They are already built for integration of fires.  Kinda of a line of steel in front of artillery but behind leading edge infantry/unmanned pairing.  Then if you can make a hole there is rapid precision long range fires able to move quickly.  Unless 10km is still too close.

Wellity Wellity wellity. 

Sounds awfully like you're scraping out a role for an over priced, over hot, over-obvious tracked platform with a heavy gun that totally isn't a tank. 

 

Damn this forums siren call. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Please elaborate on the correct use, especially the part where the tank can live long enough against $500-5000 drones that can attack from any angle from 10+km range, long before the tank has LOS to its target.

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.

Edited May 30 by ArmouredTopHat

[danfrodo]

33 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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 120mm 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.

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.

[ArmouredTopHat]

20 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

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.

Thank you! Means a lot honestly.

I will note that a lot of this comes from a host of different sourcing. Perun did some excellent drone videos that cover the subject, and there is a fair bit of chatter from certain UA telegrams that cover a lot of interesting information about things like drone attrition rates, how tanks are used ect.

The overall impression is that its quite the evolving battleground, innovations and improvisations made by both sides in terms of weeks instead of months / years. No doubt a LOT of data will be crunched by all interested parties when this conflict is over. 

[pugstorm]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK, let's not reinforce every stereotype of wargamers being old and intolerant.  We all know we are, so why advertise it?  Not that it will scare anybody away.  The new generation doesn't know how to use a forum anyway, mostly because they don't know what they are. 

Steve

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.

[Offshoot]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

Watching videos of assaults it does seem like a good proportion of vehicles are knocked out by mines, but are mines still a traditional method when the mines were laid using drones? I know you are talking specifically about FPVs but I see them more as an application of drone technology rather than a separate entity (except perhaps when they become fully autonomous).

[Offshoot]

On drones and mines, this is an interesting podcast on using drones and AI for demining. They are talking to someone at the business end of research on this in Ukraine.

Using AI to Clear Land Mines in Ukraine: Combining drones and machine learning to demine Ukrainian battlefields

Quote

So we provide AI and mapping software for the deminers to analyze their drone imagery much more effectively. We hope that this process, or our software, will decrease the amount of time that deminers use to analyze the imagery of the land, thereby more quickly and more effectively constraining the areas with the most contamination...

At the moment, there is no conception of replacing a human in demining operations, and people that try to push that eventuality are usually disregarded pretty quickly.

 

[dan/california]

 

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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 120mm 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.

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.

 

Edited May 30 by dan/california

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Wellity Wellity wellity. 

Sounds awfully like you're scraping out a role for an over priced, over hot, over-obvious tracked platform with a heavy gun that totally isn't a tank. 

 

Damn this forums siren call. 

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.

[ArmouredTopHat]

36 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Watching videos of assaults it does seem like a good proportion of vehicles are knocked out by mines, but are mines still a traditional method when the mines were laid using drones? I know you are talking specifically about FPVs but I see them more as an application of drone technology rather than a separate entity (except perhaps when they become fully autonomous).

Remote mining is certainly a new concept, but I do wonder what the human/drone ratio of mine laying is. I assume drone mining is a minority, though very useful for laying mines down approaches previously believed to be clear by the enemy (essentially an improvised version of howitzer fired mine shells)

To me drones in general seem a great supplement to certain problems on the battlefield (recon being the chief value of their use I would think) but ultimately wont be replacing anything or anyone soon. 

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

Here is the thing though, it was noted well before the 2024 FPV scourge that tanks were becoming unsuitable for their primary role.  The evidence is all over Ukraine.  We noted the lack of performance from armor going back to 2022.  In reality it was a combination of factors - ISR, Artillery, ATGMs, mines and UAS.  Once AirPower was essentially denied and the Wild West below 2000 feet broke out, the tank became hunted out of its ability to be a pillar within a combined arms context.  

We have seen far too much evidence to support this, and not just edited war porn.  RUSI and CSIS reports have noted a lot of strange behaviours on both sides with respect to armor.  The easy button excuse has been “well that is Soviet legacy - they don’t know how to do combined arms”.  That does not even make sense as the Soviets knew combined arms very well.  They just went about it differently. Further it stretches credibility to argue that both sides after two years have somehow been unable to solve for Cbt Team/Battlegroup operations.  Something else is clearly going on.  We have seen reports of Russian concentration being picked up and hammered well before they can even get into direct fire ranges.  Both sides are keeping tanks well back for indirect roles, or sending them forward in ones and twos for sniping. They are doing this not because they have forgotten how to put 12 tanks together, they have done it because putting 12 tanks in the same grid square is asking for 12 tanks to be detected and die.

Now FPVs have arrived in scope and scale and are making things worse.  It has been noted many these crazy little bastards are crippling and mauling at scales that rivalled artillery support - in fact one could make a coherent argument they kept the UA in the game during the Ammunition Famine of  winter spring ‘24.  What your video is showing is not that a T64 got hit by a couple FPVs and survived, it is showing that this strikes were recorded by another drone.  That T64 was fixed by ISR likely well before those FPVs showed up.  So while it shrugged off the two FPVs, it would not shrug off the artillery, ATGMs or more FPVs coming their way because they were spotted and tracked by ISR the whole time.

Finally, and again…this is not all about UAS.  If all we had to worry about were UAS in all there shapes and sizes it would be bad enough.  This is a confluence of C4ISR, PGM and Unmanned - combined with extant forms of fires.  We are living in a Fires dominate age, which like the last one led to Defensive primacy. I personally think we are in Denial primacy but can see Defensive from here. The entire package, particularly C4ISR are what are changing the entire game.  C4ISR means manoeuvre is detected well out and engaged starting at around 20kms and progressively worse as one gets closer to a front line. Concentrating is toxic under these conditions and other sides have seen this. Battalion concentrations without air superiority, ISR superiority and some sort of non-existent shielding are dying before they can cross the start line. 

So here we are, the first day of the rest of lives.  Manoeuvre and mass are broken.  ISR, precision and denial broke them. The real question is, “can it be unbroken in this war?”  Or do we have to wait until the next one?

[FancyCat]

NYT article on the rapidly approaching decision point for U.S approving western weapons fired on Russian soil. Interesting justification for nuclear rhetoric being empty, Russia won't signal rising on the nuclear escalation ladder by attacking NATO directly to stop arms shipments. Terrifying idea but makes sense.

The attacks against radar sites is mentioned which I quoted, but no response on how Ukraine reacted. I do wonder if it's a trade off situation, Ukraine stops attacking early warning sites, if the U.S lets Ukraine defend Kharkiv.

I mean it is the 2nd largest city in Ukraine.

Quote

American officials are increasingly dismissing such warnings as empty. Russia, they note, has never taken the risk of attacking the supply of weapons to Ukraine in Poland or elsewhere in NATO territory. President Vladimir V. Putin has done everything he could to avoid direct conflict with the Western alliance, even while showing off his nuclear capabilities or warning, as Mr. Peskov does regularly, that the West was risking turning a regional conflict into World War III.

But there remains considerable unease inside the Biden administration over the possibility of nuclear escalation. One senior administration official said that Washington had conveyed concern to Mr. Zelensky’s government about strikes against nuclear early-warning radar systems inside Russia in recent weeks.  To conduct the attacks, the Ukrainians used locally produced drones and missiles. But American officials voiced concerns that Moscow could misperceive Western intentions, and told Ukraine they consider the maintenance of early-warning systems to be critical to nuclear stability.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-weapons.html