ArmouredTopHat Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 32 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: Interesting. When he asks the rhetorical question about how to stop the Russians, I looked hard for a mention of tanks amongst all the mentions of drones, but sheesh... I couldn't find one! Doesn't mention IFVs, APCs, trucks, Toyotas, tractors, mines or soldiers with Javelins, NLAWs and AKs either, yet I am pretty sure those are in fact used on a daily basis. No one is arguing that if Ukraine had more tanks things would be all fine and dandy, that does not mean they are without role on the battlefield either. A proclivity / focus on drones from a post should not be indicative that they are the only means of victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1e9i0ds/additional_footage_of_ukrainian_soldier_callsign/ (Warning: pretty brutal close range footage) Even with the focus on drones and long range weapons, we still see combat often coming down to the infantrymen and his rifle defending his trench. Horrifically brutal stuff. This conflict is going to spawn a generation of PTSD in the region. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1e9l3fp/ukrainian_bradley_from_425th_skala_battalion/ Also some more Brad footage that is not tied to 47th for a change. Again going to note how they are doing -exactly- what an IFV was designed for. Dropping off infantry and pulverising anything in the way with direct fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Doesn't mention IFVs, APCs, trucks, Toyotas, tractors, mines or soldiers with Javelins, NLAWs and AKs either, yet I am pretty sure those are in fact used on a daily basis. No one is arguing that if Ukraine had more tanks things would be all fine and dandy, that does not mean they are without role on the battlefield either. He appears to have been answering a question about defensive operations. It's fair to say we are not seeing a lot of evidence of tank usage by Ukraine these days. There are probably multiple reasons reasons for this, but historically tanks have been more critical to offense than defense. Edited July 22 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 An excellent follow-up from Jompy on the MTLB situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 17 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1e9i0ds/additional_footage_of_ukrainian_soldier_callsign/ (Warning: pretty brutal close range footage) Even with the focus on drones and long range weapons, we still see combat often coming down to the infantrymen and his rifle defending his trench. Horrifically brutal stuff. This conflict is going to spawn a generation of PTSD in the region. wow, that was nasty. Yeah, PTSD for an entire nation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: An excellent follow-up from Jompy on the MTLB situation. I am waiting for the lend-lease halftracks to start showing up, should be any day now 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said: He appears to have been answering a question about defensive operations. It's fair to say we are not seeing a lot of evidence of tank usage by Ukraine these days. There are probably multiple reasons reasons for this, but historically tanks have been more critical to offense than defense. The footage is there, its just a matter of looking for it. They are getting plenty of use even defensively. Note how there is a wide acceptance that the role of the tank has changed (at least from soviet doctrine), yet its still viewed as immensely valuable on the battlefield with both direct and indirect fire. The tankers themselves indicate that their fires are often more accuracy than artillery, that and being able to fire brigade an area under attack more effectively. Edited July 22 by ArmouredTopHat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said: The footage is there, its just a matter of looking for it. They are getting plenty of use even defensively. Note how there is a wide acceptance that the role of the tank has changed (at least from soviet doctrine), yet its still viewed as immensely valuable on the battlefield with both direct and indirect fire. The tankers themselves indicate that their fires are often more accuracy than artillery, that and being able to fire brigade an area under attack more effectively. I think this gets into an aspect of the 'tank-is-dead' that sometimes get confused here. Is the tank dead right now? No. It's still being used and doing good work. It's also logistically expensive and highly vulnerable to drones, ATGMs, etc. At the same time we all think it's great that RU is running out of tanks and AFVs, which if useless then why would we care if RU runs out? Will the tank be dead later (soon-ish)? Probably. There will be a lot of very cheap and effective drones, and no one sees a way around that yet. Not to resurrect dead forum topic, but I do wish UKR had hundreds of western MBTs and thousands of bradleys/CV90s/etc right now. Do I think it's wise to invest hundreds of billions in MBTs going forward? -- no. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) A very nasty video here, hope it hasn't been shared already. UKR soldier in trench kills two RU soldiers in two terrifying point blank encounters. And more hits on RU refineries -- guy taking video doesn't seem to understand the danger of standing on balcony while AA MGs are blasting away. Where does he think bullets go?? https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/7/22/2256952/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Ukraine-s-campaign-against-Russian-oil-refineries-continues?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web Edited July 22 by danfrodo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Doesn't mention IFVs, APCs, trucks, Toyotas, tractors, mines or soldiers with Javelins, NLAWs and AKs either, yet I am pretty sure those are in fact used on a daily basis. Yeah, well, that's all strawman stuff. My point is that he was sounding off on what he feels Ukraine needs to beat down Russia over the next year. In the past we have heard a lot of noise from Ukraine about tanks. Explicitly tanks. And yet, this time, it was all about drones, drones, and more drones. 4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: No one is arguing that if Ukraine had more tanks things would be all fine and dandy, that does not mean they are without role on the battlefield either. And has been argued a million times in this thread, their role is greatly diminished from what they are supposed to be doing. All of which is perfectly logical if one accepts how vulnerable they are. For every video you can find of a tank doing it's business I can probably find 10 of a tank being blown up by a home built drone. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Note how there is a wide acceptance that the role of the tank has changed (at least from soviet doctrine), yet its still viewed as immensely valuable on the battlefield with both direct and indirect fire. The tankers themselves indicate that their fires are often more accuracy than artillery, that and being able to fire brigade an area under attack more effectively. Not to belittle the bravery and accomplishments of Ukrainian tankers, but this is what I would expect a tanker to say. At least the ones that are selected by their units to speak publicly (all of this is supposed to be cleared before release). Again, this is not to say they are ineffective or pointless. But they are largely an expensive and limited redundancy. I'm sure no tanker would say that, but it doesn't mean it isn't true. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: Not to belittle the bravery and accomplishments of Ukrainian tankers, but this is what I would expect a tanker to say. At least the ones that are selected by their units to speak publicly (all of this is supposed to be cleared before release). Again, this is not to say they are ineffective or pointless. But they are largely an expensive and limited redundancy. I'm sure no tanker would say that, but it doesn't mean it isn't true. Steve Tankers in the past have usually been pretty vocal when their perceived survivability was a problem, even when it was not backed up by statistics. (Allied tanks in Normandy for instance) If UA tankers were constantly venting about how they couldn't do anything due to drones (their operations are constrained but clearly not denied) then I would give you more credit. The greatest acknowledge is that they are heavily aware of the threat and take the appropriate precautions. Mobility helps them out a lot in that respect. As long as the tanks have a safe haven to reach by the end of the day (as indicated by the above sources) they seem to be reasonably survivable. Turns out if you dont suicide your vehicles in penny packet attacks you dont suffer god horrible attrition or something. We can circle about this all day, we clearly have a difference of opinion on the subject. Edited July 23 by ArmouredTopHat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 17 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: We can circle about this all day, we clearly have a difference of opinion on the subject. After two years the pattern becomes obvious. Armored Maneuver warfare with a near peer adversary is becoming more challenging. Operation Bagration today would be impossible to carry out to its conclusion. The front is pretty static. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) 6 hours ago, danfrodo said: I think this gets into an aspect of the 'tank-is-dead' that sometimes get confused here. Is the tank dead right now? No. It's still being used and doing good work. It's also logistically expensive and highly vulnerable to drones, ATGMs, etc. At the same time we all think it's great that RU is running out of tanks and AFVs, which if useless then why would we care if RU runs out? Will the tank be dead later (soon-ish)? Probably. There will be a lot of very cheap and effective drones, and no one sees a way around that yet. Not to resurrect dead forum topic, but I do wish UKR had hundreds of western MBTs and thousands of bradleys/CV90s/etc right now. Do I think it's wise to invest hundreds of billions in MBTs going forward? -- no. In that first video the tank is doing indirect fires. I think there may be a medium/long range fires role for armor, but they need PGM rounds to do it. Of course a 25 million dollar mobile gun might price itself out of business pretty fast. We don’t spend money an armor for indirect fires, or defensive sniping. We invest in them as platforms that can exploit manoeuvre. Steel horses able to break out and dislocate an opponent. That decisive effect is worth 25 million a pop…however, if it cannot deliver, even a fancy mobile gun system is going to get priced out of the business pretty fast. The UA could not absorb all that hardware; training, maintenance and logistics alone are a major issue if they upscaled on western equipment. And then there is a complete lack of any battlefield evidence that they would be able to regain the offensive with said hardware. All that western equipment could easily become an investment money/resource pit with very little returns - oh look we can lob more HE shells…woo hoo. I think many commanders in Ukraine understand the reality of this war as it evolves. I suggest we listen to them. Edited July 23 by The_Capt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Tankers in the past have usually been pretty vocal when their perceived survivability was a problem, even when it was not backed up by statistics. (Allied tanks in Normandy for instance) How much of that bitching was done on camera during the war and approved of by their commanders? Apples to apples requires recognizing what is an apple and what is a pear. 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: If UA tankers were constantly venting about how they couldn't do anything due to drones (their operations are constrained but clearly not denied) then I would give you more credit. The greatest acknowledge is that they are heavily aware of the threat and take the appropriate precautions. Mobility helps them out a lot in that respect. As long as the tanks have a safe haven to reach by the end of the day (as indicated by the above sources) they seem to be reasonably survivable. Yeah, but this is BS. We've seen endless numbers of videos of tanks being spotted before they've even gotten to their assembly areas, are hit by drones and artillery, barely get to their objectives through mines, get hit while trying to perform mere few shots, then get harassed/hit while they try to get back to safety. Single tanks would be even easier to pick off, not harder. Seriously... aren't you seeing the same videos as I am? Have you also seen the Ukrainian vehicle losses for major engagements, like Avdiivka? They weren't light. Now, it could very well be that Ukraine is better at attacking Russian vehicles and therefore Ukrainian tankers have more longevity than their Russian counterparts. In fact, this has been stated by both sides to be the case. And as Russia has improved their capabilities so too have the complaints by the Ukrainians about their effectiveness. 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Turns out if you dont suicide your vehicles in penny packet attacks you dont suffer god horrible attrition or something. So, basically, don't use tanks like they were designed for, instead keep them hiding in safe havens, pull them out only when you're absolutely sure it's necessary, and then drive back to safety at top speed and hope for the best. Not the best argument in support of MBTs. 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: We can circle about this all day, we clearly have a difference of opinion on the subject. You can circle, I'm going in a straight line. Forward. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: So, basically, don't use tanks like they were designed for, instead keep them hiding in safe havens, pull them out only when you're absolutely sure it's necessary, and then drive back to safety at top speed and hope for the best. Not the best argument in support of MBTs. Tanks were never designed to be rammed carelessly into defences, nor are they expected to be invincible bastions that can take anything thrown at them. Their whole point is to be a mobile cannon with protection. That's entirely what makes them useful even in the constrained environment that is Ukraine. We really need to stop looking at the Russians suiciding their tanks (and other vehicles) away repeatedly and think that's it for tanks in general. Were seeing literally the same results if they use bikes or MBTs. Many of their tanks are quiet frankly inferior platforms that are either cold war platforms or successors to them (Save for the T-90Ms pretty much everything is incomparable with western MBTs when it comes to things like survivability, I suppose cases could be made for T-72B3 or T-80BVM as well) with increasingly poorly trained crews and are being expended as such. The environment in Ukraine does not currently favour mass mechanised movement sure, there are a lot of reasons for that, none of which have to really do with the tank as a viable platform but instead the deadlock Ukraine and Russia are in. This could very well change in the future. Mechanised warfare did not die in WW2 with the deadlock in Normandy for instance. Even WW1 featured a resumption of mobile warfare in 1918. Battlefield conditions change. I see this as the 1916 point of the war personally. Who knows what is in store. I'm not sure how Ukrainians adapting their use of tanks to operate despite the drone conditions constitutes a bad thing. 13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: How much of that bitching was done on camera during the war and approved of by their commanders? Apples to apples requires recognizing what is an apple and what is a pear. I have not seen one single source at any point of the war from either side that has declared tanks to be entirely worthless and deathtraps, even in the face of a emerging drone threat. Drones are not the by all end all solution to every problem that exists. There are plenty of Ukrainian sources not moderated by the military that have bitched about commanders, equipment or issues like manpower, I dont recall any one of them moaning about tanks specifically. (Feel free to correct though!) https://files.catbox.moe/aetq2x.mp4 Hate to use a Russian source but it showcases what tanks remain great at: shooting targets at ranges measures in kilometres at targets unable to respond or react with an uncomplicated kill chain. The tank in this particular example is shooting at ranges that outmatch even a lot of ATGM's. This happens more than frequently. As pointed out hundreds of times before, were witnessing a very large scale war with a lot of tanks featured, of course we see a lot of tanks destroyed (insane amounts if we look at the horribly poor choices the Russians have made) We need to really be careful about applying the Belton Cooper method to tanks (ie See lots of tanks destroyed = our tanks are clearly useless) when we typically see them being destroyed and dont actually have a full picture of what is fully going on. Even with the vast amount of visual data we are getting, we are still getting an incomplete picture. 33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: Seriously... aren't you seeing the same videos as I am? Have you also seen the Ukrainian vehicle losses for major engagements, like Avdiivka? They weren't light. I see vehicles of all types being destroyed, somewhat of an expectation in a high intensity conflict. If Ukraine is still operating a sizable portion of its tank fleet after years of said high intensity conflict I think that's a mark in favour of its viability as a weapons system, even in such a constrained environment. You would think of the tank was so vulnerable and useless that both sides would not even bother with trying to restore as many as they can and actively produce more, or continue to develop and refine new tactical methods of use. 38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: You can circle, I'm going in a straight line. Forward. As always, you are entitled to your own opinion of course! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 These discussions are becoming so tedious. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 1 hour ago, Thomm said: These discussions are becoming so tedious. Can't agree more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 2 hours ago, Thomm said: These discussions are becoming so tedious. Now is the time on sprockets when we dance. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxromana Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thomm said: These discussions are becoming so tedious. I imagine they are taken rather more seriously by the military powers that be in Ukraine and (maybe) in Orcland. Edited July 23 by paxromana 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letter from Prague Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Sorry to interrupt the beating of a dead tank (geddit?) but I want to talk about air denial in higher altitudes. In his last video while talking about North Korea having like 20 SAM launchers in total, Perun said how that this war is special because it's basically two countries with largest GBAD arsenals in existence fighting each other and we should be careful to apply that lesson elsewhere. What does the room think? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenses Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 11 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said: Sorry to interrupt the beating of a dead tank (geddit?) but I want to talk about air denial in higher altitudes. In his last video while talking about North Korea having like 20 SAM launchers in total, Perun said how that this war is special because it's basically two countries with largest GBAD arsenals in existence fighting each other and we should be careful to apply that lesson elsewhere. What does the room think? I think that this war is defined by lack of air superiority by any of the sides. This is THE most important factor why we see WW I like warfare. Not the only one but still the most important. We have small revolution below 1000m altitude with drone warfare becoming the new air(and slowly also ground) struggle creating a separate layer from standard air force assets. As an additional takeaway I tink that the western approach to absolutly dominate the battlefield with its air force both in quantity and quality might be right looking at Ukraine battlefield. 5 gen fighters operating at high altitudes with omnipresent ISR would be a game changer for all problematic activities in this war. Fast to deliver, precise and to large extent immune air assets would turn this conflict very fast into one sided shooting exercise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grigb Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 1 hour ago, Thomm said: These discussions are becoming so tedious. Yes but this discussion is about to become significantly more interesting. The real war experience showed us that Tanks are significantly less useful on modern battlefields (due to overall vulnerability, lack of agility, high cost). To the point that they are no longer required and generally we can fight without them. However, there are two specific cases (one is specific case of AT defense, another is specific case of infantry fire support) where High velocity High caliber gun mounted on the platform with heavy frontal armor will outperform other platforms be it artillery, ATGMs or drones. Both sides of the debate are right in some aspects but also both sides are wrong in other aspects. "Pro-tank" side overstates general utility and understates vulnerability of a tank. It is highly unlikely that tank would be as important as it was during Cold War. It is surely stay usefull and relevant as niche tool. "Anti-tank" side correctly states all the issues with tanks but dramatically overhype drone capabilities. There are limits and these limits unlikely to disappear in future. Sure drone technology is improving but counter-drone is improving as well and it (and laws of physics and costs) put severe limits on drone capabilities in some cases. For such cases it is beneficial to have small number of tanks around. Short example - Drones as weapon are not guaranteed to halt a massed armor attack in time. Properly executed armored attack (mech infantry company + tank platoon) will overran forward platoon or company strong point. However, drones are expected to cause 70%-90% percent of losses during assault itself and right after. This is of the reasons RU can often force UKR from their forward defensive positions but rarely can force operational breakthrough. There are very few things that can stop 120mm NATO slug. And non of that can be found on RU tanks. Also NATO tank can throw one slug every few seconds and these slugs will hit RU tank in less than 2 second. Non of the drones can outperform that. So, if you want to save your forward infantry unit against surprise competent armor attack you will have to keep few tanks around. Yes, some of you might claim that in future drone swarms will destroy armor column in seconds. My answer is No. It is fantasy that does not take in to consideration laws of physics, cost and C-UAS capabilities. End of story. Obvioulsy, my comment lacks detailed explanation. But I intentionally focused on making it short - my earlier comment about m113 and Brad's employment is currently 5 pages long and still requires some editing and insertion of links and photos. 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 33 minutes ago, Tenses said: I think that this war is defined by lack of air superiority by any of the sides. This is THE most important factor why we see WW I like warfare. Not the only one but still the most important. We have small revolution below 1000m altitude with drone warfare becoming the new air(and slowly also ground) struggle creating a separate layer from standard air force assets. As an additional takeaway I tink that the western approach to absolutly dominate the battlefield with its air force both in quantity and quality might be right looking at Ukraine battlefield. 5 gen fighters operating at high altitudes with omnipresent ISR would be a game changer for all problematic activities in this war. Fast to deliver, precise and to large extent immune air assets would turn this conflict very fast into one sided shooting exercise. I'm note sure how, at a tactical level, air superiority is better than drone superiority. A 5th gen fighter will struggle to shoot down fpvs and orlan-10s, or hunt ATGM positions. But air superiority could make all the lights go out in Moscow and that is how you would win the war. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.