How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, holoween said:

Does everyone collectively keep forgetting that aps do exist but are currently not used in ukraine be either side?

Because they do fix the core survivability vs infantry issue tanks currently have.

Ya, not so much.  They may mitigate but they are not going to "fix" anything anytime soon.  

First off APS does nothing to help against PGM such as SMART (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155) , DPICM nor do we know how they manage top down attack against thing such as Javelin and self-loitering munitions.  To simply go with "a-ha we have APS, mischief managed!" is to go forward blindly as technology to kill big steel hot things is accelerate well past the technology to stop it.  To my eye APS is the ERA of the 80's..neat idea that took about 10-mins to figure out how to beat.  And we have not even scratched the surface of UGVs - imagine a minefield with legs.

Second, APS does not solve for the entire system, it protects the front end of it and unless you mount it on every tank, AFV, artillery piece and engineer vehicle, it won't even do that.  Oh wait, it gets worse.  You need APS on your entire logistical and C4ISR chain as well - or you risk well protected F ech out of gas, ammo and spare parts pretty quick, something else the Russian demonstrated very well. 

Third APS does zero for the ISR problem, it might make it worse.  A bunch of sensors and boxes is going to raise vehicle profiles, not shrink them.

So I do not think we are forgetting about APS, we are simply recognizing that it will be a partial mitigation best.   The whole "counter/Shield" technology boom is coming but we have a trend of advancing technology to kill each other faster than to counter it.

[sburke]

38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You sketched out one that many are moving towards... increasing the sensor range of AFVs so they have some reasonable chance of detecting an ATGM before coming within LOS and range of it.  Drones seem to be the correct option to focus on, but there are others (integrated force wide sensors, for example).

An unarmed drone can at least hope to identify an ATGM's position so that the AFV can plan movement accordingly and call upon supporting arms to deal with threat.  This requires good communications and that requires more equipment, training, and supporting platforms (I'm going to call "infantry" a platform in this context).  That's a traditional weakness in Soviet style militaries, so that should be kept in mind.

....

To me, this indicates that a country like Russia is going to remain significantly disadvantaged on the battlefield for the foreseeable future.  It has shown no historical capability to incorporate sophisticated combined arms tactics as a component of permanent readiness.  It has also show no ability to consistently develop, deploy, and support the use of robust and sophisticated communications capabilities.  The West, on the other hand, has shown it can do both.  Therefore, Russia is unlikely capable of fielding an armored force that is practically useful on the modern battlefield.

Steve

It seems that any country that hopes to fight this kind of war needs to address at its heart one major issue.  Having an infantry force capable of performing on this battlefield.  Conscripts don't cut it.  A professional highly skilled force is absolutely necessary.  While the actual battlefield weapons like AT and AA can be made to be user friendly till it is almost point and shoot, the coordination and utilization of high tech capabilities independently on the battlefield means having to really focus on that NCO corp and having an infantry force that is trained to a level to be useful. I think this is another area Ukraine has a major advantage.  Its infantry is highly motivated and frankly overall better educated than the enemy they are facing and have been able to adapt and learn with a developing NCO force that facilitates that process.  Russia might get some of these toys onto the battlefield, but its force structure denies them the ability to truly master the capabilities they provide.  Russian society isn't geared for people to think for themselves.  That is going to be a prerequisite for a soldier to be successful in this space.

[Battlefront.com]

You know you're war is going well when even the cats are on your side... Slava Ukraini!

 

 

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I keep returning to this over and over again, as do you.  I don't know what the proper axiom is from some smarter fellow than I, but "if I keep unintentionally returning to the same point repeatedly, I'm either lost or it's the right place for me to be".  How was that?

What I just wrote about sensors and what not is the technical concept for how to keep AFVs in the fight.  For a country like the US it is doable, even with the major shortcomings you pointed to (in particular volume of space and pacing).  However, the question keeps being raised... if you need to do all of that, and even then you're not sure it will work, then maybe you should refocus on battlefield needs without preconceptions of what systems should be involved.

It's like the old joke:

Patient - "doctor, it hurts when I do this"
Doctor - "then don't do that"

Trillions of Dollars and almost 100 years has been poured into heavily armored vehicles that can directly engage the enemy's forces one on one.  As time has gone on the ability to do that has become more difficult, more expensive, and less certain in outcome.  With technology the way it is going it's vastly easier to figure out how to blow up a large metal object driving around a battlefield than it is to prevent its destruction. 

I am absolutely onboard the "armor is dead" bandwagon.  Or more accurately, "armor as we know of it today is dead, but armor itself likely still has a role".  Heavily armored, fast moving vehicles that can bring self sufficient infantry from A to B, then bugger off to safety is where my mind goes.

There's a series of Sci-Fi books that I am reading.  It is "The Damned Trilogy" by Alan Dean Foster.  To cut a long explanation short, after 1000s of years of technological warfare they arrived at a stage where "if it flies it dies".  The result is that all their strategies, tactics, weaponry, and forces are tailored to fight on the ground in fairly close quarters battles for individual planets lasting (sometimes) hundreds of years.  This conceptualization of future warfare is the exact opposite of most Sci-Fi where everything is basically an analog to WW2 warfare.  The details of the books are fun to explore (and imperfect for sure), but I'm skipping them to focus on our reality with armor.

These books got me thinking that the best thing to do is abandon the concept that armor is a direct fire, direct support platform.  Take that completely out of the equation for land battles and see what can be done with the remaining elements, either existing or emerging.  Figure out how to use non-armored elements to achieve battlefield victories and then see how armor might fit back into the mix, though with one provision -> armor must not be assigned a role that only it can fulfill.  Yup, that's right... armor must be viewed as a "it's nice to have" instead of "it's a must have".

Steve

Would it be too simplistic to say that the MANPAD will do to armor what the bullet did to the heavily armored mounted knight? What was the result then? Lighter cavalry used as pursuit and heavier cavalry used occasionally as shock but both being much lighter in protection and higher in speed than before. 

[Huba]

Some details about the new security package for UA:

6 NASAMS batteries ( I assume on top of the previously ordered 3?) plus 3 or 4 IRIS-T systems add up to a 13 battteries of modern SHORAD. This should be enough to provide a continuous SAM belt along the line of contact (more or less). Great news !

[holoween]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ya, not so much.  They may mitigate but they are not going to "fix" anything anytime soon.  

First off APS does nothing to help against PGM such as SMART (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155) , DPICM

Notice how i said vs infantry because if you have to rely on arty to get your anti tank work done tanks become a whole lot more difficult.

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

nor do we know how they manage top down attack against thing such as Javelin and self-loitering munitions. 

should be far simpler as towards the sky there is less clutter to interfere with the radar just noone has really build it because javelin has been rare/on our side

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

To simply go with "a-ha we have APS, mischief managed!" is to go forward blindly as technology to kill big steel hot things is accelerate well past the technology to stop it.  To my eye APS is the ERA of the 80's..neat idea that took about 10-mins to figure out how to beat.  And we have not even scratched the surface of UGVs - imagine a minefield with legs.

APS isnt exaclty beaten. ERA hasnt really been made obsoltet though. it at least pushes the minimum required warhead size up so fewer weapons carried around for an infantry squad.

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Second, APS does not solve for the entire system, it protects the front end of it and unless you mount it on every tank, AFV, artillery piece and engineer vehicle, it won't even do that.  Oh wait, it gets worse.  You need APS on your entire logistical and C4ISR chain as well - or you risk well protected F ech out of gas, ammo and spare parts pretty quick, something else the Russian demonstrated very well. 

It does however work on one very important part the actually winning a specific fight which is currently ukraine and russias problem. If you have to rely on arty or other heavy assets to take out tanks they can at least advance until they have to resupply which can mean quite some distance.

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Third APS does zero for the ISR problem, it might make it worse.  A bunch of sensors and boxes is going to raise vehicle profiles, not shrink them.

So I do not think we are forgetting about APS, we are simply recognizing that it will be a partial mitigation best.   The whole "counter/Shield" technology boom is coming but we have a trend of advancing technology to kill each other faster than to counter it.

yea yet a tank works on its survivability. if that doesnt exist you dont have a tank. so even if it isnt perfect which it wont be it massively helps

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, holoween said:

Notice how i said vs infantry because if you have to rely on arty to get your anti tank work done tanks become a whole lot more difficult.

Again, not consistent with this war so far.  Artillery is, again, doing most of the damage.  Infantry are now becoming as much ISR as anything else in this.  

4 minutes ago, holoween said:

should be far simpler as towards the sky there is less clutter to interfere with the radar just noone has really build it because javelin has been rare/on our side

Ok, well I am not an expert but having a next gen smart-ATGM able to evade or by-pass APS does not really sound like much of a challenge when with current technology the UA is basically spelling out graffiti with 155 shells on bridges.   Here are some ATGM ideas, for free: stand-off EFP, sub-munitions, dual or multiple attack systems...and this is not even my field.

7 minutes ago, holoween said:

APS isnt exaclty beaten. ERA hasnt really been made obsoltet though. it at least pushes the minimum required warhead size up so fewer weapons carried around for an infantry squad.

Ok, so silver lining.  But none of this solves the core problem - the visibility of the tank system.  This is not about the tank, it isn't even about mech/armor - it is about the entire operational system that can project mass. It is too easy to see and hit from multiple vectors.  

9 minutes ago, holoween said:

It does however work on one very important part the actually winning a specific fight which is currently ukraine and russias problem. If you have to rely on arty or other heavy assets to take out tanks they can at least advance until they have to resupply which can mean quite some distance.

So you are proposing that we load up a heavy formation and in the O Group say "you can make great gains until you run out of gas, then best to abandon your vehicle and try to fight as infantry"?  Cause that is what is going to happen...just like in this war.  It solves nothing, it only means very expensive equipment and well trained men can die deeper in enemy territory.

11 minutes ago, holoween said:

yea yet a tank works on its survivability. if that doesnt exist you dont have a tank. so even if it isnt perfect which it wont be it massively helps

And this would be why everyone is paying so much attention.  I am pretty sure APS will be on the board but anyone who believes that it is going to somehow put warfare back into the box we knew has their heads in the sand.

[cesmonkey]

19 minutes ago, Huba said:

Some details about the new security package for UA:

6 NASAMS batteries ( I assume on top of the previously ordered 3?) plus 3 or 4 IRIS-T systems add up to a 13 battteries of modern SHORAD. This should be enough to provide a continuous SAM belt along the line of contact (more or less). Great news !

Here's the DoD version:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3138105/nearly-3-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

where it states:

Six additional National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) with additional munitions for NASAMS

[sburke]

partisan activity that showcases why Russia decided to put off that plebiscite.

Russian Proxy Leader Killed by Car Bomb as Ukraine Vows to ‘Fight to the End’ (msn.com)

[photon]

10 minutes ago, holoween said:

yea yet a tank works on its survivability. if that doesnt exist you dont have a tank. so even if it isnt perfect which it wont be it massively helps

APS strikes me a bit like armoring the flight decks of aircraft carriers in the 40s. It's a fine idea as far as it goes, but it won't stop a dedicated attacker, it marginally improves survivability, and it reduces the plane handling capabilities of the ship. If you need the deck armor, something has already gone catastrophically wrong in the chain of things meant to prevent your carrier from coming under attack.

The protective chain for 3rd fleet looked something like this:

1. Degrade Japanese air capabilities by destroying plane production facilities/materials. (No planes, no attacks.)

If that fails...

2. Degrade Japanese air capabilities by destroying planes and airstrips. (No operational planes, no attacks.)

If that fails...

3. Be somewhere unexpected. (3rd/5th fleet could move around the Pacific faster than the Japanese could reallocate reinforcements)

If that fails...

4. Use ISR superiority to vector swarms of Hellcats at incoming planes. (Active defense beyond standoff range.)

If that fails...

5. Dedicated fleet elements throw up walls of flak. (Active defense within standoff range.)

If that fails...

6. Drive like a drunken sailor at top speed. (Displace to avoid attacks.)

If that fails...

7. Hope the deck armor or torpedo blisters take the hit.

What would it look like to build a protective chain like that for a company of tanks? What does a CIC look like for a tank company? Radar picket destroyers? CAP? I think it's all analogically applicable.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, photon said:

APS strikes me a bit like armoring the flight decks of aircraft carriers in the 40s. It's a fine idea as far as it goes, but it won't stop a dedicated attacker, it marginally improves survivability, and it reduces the plane handling capabilities of the ship. If you need the deck armor, something has already gone catastrophically wrong in the chain of things meant to prevent your carrier from coming under attack.

The protective chain for 3rd fleet looked something like this:

1. Degrade Japanese air capabilities by destroying plane production facilities/materials. (No planes, no attacks.)

If that fails...

2. Degrade Japanese air capabilities by destroying planes and airstrips. (No operational planes, no attacks.)

If that fails...

3. Be somewhere unexpected. (3rd/5th fleet could move around the Pacific faster than the Japanese could reallocate reinforcements)

If that fails...

4. Use ISR superiority to vector swarms of Hellcats at incoming planes. (Active defense beyond standoff range.)

If that fails...

5. Dedicated fleet elements throw up walls of flak. (Active defense within standoff range.)

If that fails...

6. Drive like a drunken sailor at top speed. (Displace to avoid attacks.)

If that fails...

7. Hope the deck armor or torpedo blisters take the hit.

What would it look like to build a protective chain like that for a company of tanks? What does a CIC look like for a tank company? Radar picket destroyers? CAP? I think it's all analogically applicable.

I think this is Steve's point.  If you have to do this to protect a tank...do we really need a tank?

[Boche]

7 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I wonder if in the future there will be dedicated ECM/anti-drone tanks

jajajaja...Misiles wont get through.....

[Huba]

9 minutes ago, holoween said:

Notice how i said vs infantry because if you have to rely on arty to get your anti tank work done tanks become a whole lot more difficult.

should be far simpler as towards the sky there is less clutter to interfere with the radar just noone has really build it because javelin has been rare/on our side

APS isnt exaclty beaten. ERA hasnt really been made obsoltet though. it at least pushes the minimum required warhead size up so fewer weapons carried around for an infantry squad.

It does however work on one very important part the actually winning a specific fight which is currently ukraine and russias problem. If you have to rely on arty or other heavy assets to take out tanks they can at least advance until they have to resupply which can mean quite some distance.

yea yet a tank works on its survivability. if that doesnt exist you dont have a tank. so even if it isnt perfect which it wont be it massively helps

It was brought up multiple times already, but fleets and ships are probably the only available analogy to look up to regarding how the things might look in the future of AFVs:

- active protection (not only APS which are somewhat of a CIWS) but also local area protection systems. In this competition infantry itself is still largely irrelevant, as  all the systems are vehicle based due to bulk.

- increasing engagement ranges and shift towards indirect fires. My personal pet favorite here are 120mm turreted mortars, capable of firing PGM of all the guidance varieties, regular HE/ DPICM/ smoke rounds and also of powerful direct fire. Should also be able to tube-launch drones much easier than any other system

- battles increasingly centered around ISR and various counters to it, but with physical resistance to damage still being extremely important

 

 

 

[Huba]

11 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Here's the DoD version:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3138105/nearly-3-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

where it states:

Six additional National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) with additional munitions for NASAMS

And on top of that  Boris Johnson who was in Kyiv today promised:

Edit: this supposedly included loitering munitions as well, with purely recon drones count at 500.

 

And for some hilarious trolling, UA hacked some radio stations in Crimea today, blasting Ukrainian patriotic sounds. Looks on the people faces are really telling - some are confused or outright scared, but many smile:

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Huba

[Grigb]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Excellent maps! Very well made and transparent. I know you want to keep low profile, but perhaps we could find some way around so more people could enjoy them.

if I am not put into spotlight, I do not mind sharing them really. I had plans to create a unanimous twitter account and forward maps there. But right now unfortunately I do not have time for that.  

And new map for the western part of Kherson direction.

[holoween]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Again, not consistent with this war so far.  Artillery is, again, doing most of the damage.  Infantry are now becoming as much ISR as anything else in this.  

That is an entirely different situation compared to early war where afv attacks were stopped by infantry ambushes with atgms and rpgs

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, well I am not an expert but having a next gen smart-ATGM able to evade or by-pass APS does not really sound like much of a challenge when with current technology the UA is basically spelling out graffiti with 155 shells on bridges.   Here are some ATGM ideas, for free: stand-off EFP, sub-munitions, dual or multiple attack systems...and this is not even my field.

Sure but these would all be very heavy compared to a "simple" javelin. they would work but thats no longer a weapon for every squad. And that doesnt adress rpg type weapons who are essential for closer range engagements.

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, so silver lining.  But none of this solves the core problem - the visibility of the tank system.  This is not about the tank, it isn't even about mech/armor - it is about the entire operational system that can project mass. It is too easy to see and hit from multiple vectors.  

the tank unit is easy to see, the individual tank more difficult. And what makes it difficult is that it constantly moves. A big issue with russian tank tactics from the videos ive seen is that they dont move for very long times.

Also do note that with the ISR in ukraine they still arent able to fully shut down logistics. and they are just random trucks and rail. So your deep strikes can degrade supply but not stop it entirely. The big deal is that currently the spearhead gets stuck not that the shaft gets broken first.

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So you are proposing that we load up a heavy formation and in the O Group say "you can make great gains until you run out of gas, then best to abandon your vehicle and try to fight as infantry"?  Cause that is what is going to happen...just like in this war.  It solves nothing, it only means very expensive equipment and well trained men can die deeper in enemy territory.

And this would be why everyone is paying so much attention.  I am pretty sure APS will be on the board but anyone who believes that it is going to somehow put warfare back into the box we knew has their heads in the sand.

It doesnt but without it afvs are pointless. There are still other layers that mater on who wins but at the same time ultimately the battle is won on the ground and survivability matters.

[Grey_Fox]

22 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Again, not consistent with this war so far.  Artillery is, again, doing most of the damage.  Infantry are now becoming as much ISR as anything else in this.  

Artillery has almost always caused most of the damage and done most of the killing for over a century now. This is nothing new.

This whole "tanks are obsolete because there are weapons that can kill them" drum that keeps on being banged on this forum is frankly silly - there has never been a time where tanks were not killable by anti-tank weapons and didn't get knocked out or destroyed in obscene numbers, yet tanks are still incredibly useful at doing the whole mobile protected firepower thing.

You're  basically saying that the recent fighting in Ukraine has proven that tanks are obsolete, yet almost every single attack and counterattack we see *still* has tanks playing an important part in the combined arms warfare thing.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[holoween]

19 minutes ago, photon said:

APS strikes me a bit like armoring the flight decks of aircraft carriers in the 40s. It's a fine idea as far as it goes, but it won't stop a dedicated attacker, it marginally improves survivability, and it reduces the plane handling capabilities of the ship. If you need the deck armor, something has already gone catastrophically wrong in the chain of things meant to prevent your carrier from coming under attack.

The protective chain for 3rd fleet looked something like this:

1. Degrade Japanese air capabilities by destroying plane production facilities/materials. (No planes, no attacks.)

Destroy enemy weapons factory

19 minutes ago, photon said:

If that fails...

2. Degrade Japanese air capabilities by destroying planes and airstrips. (No operational planes, no attacks.)

Destroy logistic network

19 minutes ago, photon said:

If that fails...

3. Be somewhere unexpected. (3rd/5th fleet could move around the Pacific faster than the Japanese could reallocate reinforcements)

attack where the enemy hasnt massed

19 minutes ago, photon said:

If that fails...

4. Use ISR superiority to vector swarms of Hellcats at incoming planes. (Active defense beyond standoff range.)

supress with arty

19 minutes ago, photon said:

If that fails...

5. Dedicated fleet elements throw up walls of flak. (Active defense within standoff range.)

APS

19 minutes ago, photon said:

If that fails...

6. Drive like a drunken sailor at top speed. (Displace to avoid attacks.)

exactly the same

19 minutes ago, photon said:

If that fails...

7. Hope the deck armor or torpedo blisters take the hit.

armour

19 minutes ago, photon said:

What would it look like to build a protective chain like that for a company of tanks? What does a CIC look like for a tank company? Radar picket destroyers? CAP? I think it's all analogically applicable.

Its the same chain.

Notice how operational art does:

Attack at weakest point, surround so cut logistics, occupy production centers

 

[sburke]

5 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

there has never been a time where tanks were not killable by anti-tank weapons and didn't get knocked out or destroyed in obscene numbers, yet tanks are still incredibly useful at doing the whole mobile protected firepower thing.

actually not really true, yes there have been varying AT weapons from ATRs through AT guns, PF. PzShk and BAZ.  The issue now is proliferation, range and probability of kill.  Now you don't even need to see the tank with your Mk 1 eyeball to kill it whereas prior. IF you had a weapon in range to kill, odds are you'd be spotted and at risk the tank would get you first.

I don't think anyone has said the tank hasn't still played some role in Ukraine, just that it isn't used as it was designed and meant for. That being the case considering the expense and effort to keep it in the field and protect it, is there a better way to accomplish the role it is doing now?

The parking garage may affect that but there are only so many of them.   

[Cederic]

10 hours ago, sross112 said:

If any sort of occupation is the goal, rethink going to war. 

No, but commit properly.

Don't invade, win and tell someone you like 'hey, you can run the place now'.

You have to spend literally decades running the place for them. Control the major institutions, lead the Government, fix the economy, build the infrastructure and help the locals understand that there's a different, better way.

It'll cost a lot of cash, many lives and you'll have to cope with decades of accusations of colonisation and empire building, but what you'll get out of it is India, Morocco, Japan.. conquered territories that now contribute to the world as independent nations.

[photon]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think this is Steve's point.  If you have to do this to protect a tank...do we really need a tank?

I suppose the answer depends on what effects the "tank company" can produce? The reason we built that protective bubble around 3rd/5th Fleet was to upend the conventional pre- and early war wisdom that islands defended by aviation assets could not be reliably attacked outside the range of land based bombers. The theory was that in a fight between an island and a fleet, the fleet loses because you can't sink islands. And Japan built its defensive structure around that theory. We proved it wrong.

So if you've got a defensive theory built around the idea that mechanized offensive loses to light infantry fog (which seems very true right now), what would it look like to build a maneuver element that was protected the way 3rd/5th Fleet was protected? I'm not sure it's currently possible; we had enormous industrial advantages by the time we sorted out the big blue ball of death that would be hard to replicate today.

And if you could do that, what effects would it produce and are they worth the cost?

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Grey_Fox said:

Artillery has always caused most of the damage. This is nothing new.

This whole "tanks are obsolete because there are weapons that can kill them" drum that keeps on being banged on this forum is frankly silly - there has never been a time where tanks were not killable by anti-tank weapons and didn't get knocked out or destroyed in obscene numbers, yet tanks are still incredibly useful at doing the whole mobile protected firepower thing.

You say this escalation of the Ukraine war has proven that tanks are obsolete, yet every single attack and counterattack we see *still* has tanks playing an important part in the combined arms warfare thing.

And we keep coming back to this...hence the drum: it is much larger than the freakin tank.  

We just had GrigB describe how Russian tanks are basically being employed as mobile sniping TDs at longest ranges possible.  Nor have we seen a single battle in which armour was decisive.  Tanks play what important part?  Since Phase 1 (and we saw how that went) there has not been a mechanized breakthrough on either side yet.  Hell we have reports of Russian leaving their tanks and mech behind and advancing with infantry under massive indirect fires...but "hey tanks are just fine"?

Let me state this as clearly as possible - conventional mass has been broken in this war on both sides.  The tepid employment of tanks is only a symptom of this, not the cause.

Why?  Because surprise is essentially dead.  We probably have the most illuminated battlefield in history here on both sides and anything big and gas-hungry is a liability right now.  Why?  Because not only is their survivability in question through modern lethality, there ability to move, and more importantly manoeuvre has been challenged to the point no one can really solve for it.  Both sides, particularly the UA are hitting with precision and depth that is neutering conventional mass - at least anything that looks like modern warfare.

It is not about killing tanks - it is about neutralizing the entire tank system before it can deliver any results.  It is neutralizing it by being able to see and hit it at metrics we have never seen before by the capability levels of either side.  Airpower is also getting the yellow card in this war but I suspect the jury is still out.

Now before everyone in the "tanks are fine" camp hold up their stuffed Pattons and start screaming - I have no idea if the tank is obsolete or not, in fact that may be the least of the problems indicated here, but by all means go sniffle and flip through your Janes books to make yourself feel better.

Or, here is crazy idea...stop doing Reddit style drive-bys that only reinforce Dunning-Kruger and go get some facts we can actually use.

[Samuzy]

Tanks arent obsolete. Just heard that was being discussed here and wanted to add that.

 

[photon]

3 minutes ago, holoween said:

Its the same chain.

The difference I see is that we had one 3rd/5th Fleet, and the Japanese had a small number of immovable logistical nodes. While the chain is analogically similar (in some ways), to me the question is whether it can scale down. Like, you can build a 10GW nuclear plant to power a country. Can you build one to power a car? No. You can build that protective chain for a fleet of a hundred ships. Can you build it for a group of thirty tanks? I'm not sure?

[holoween]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It is not about killing tanks - it is about neutralizing the entire tank system before it can deliver any results.  It is neutralizing it by being able to see and hit it at metrics we have never seen before by the capability levels of either side.  Airpower is also getting the yellow card in this war but I suspect the jury is still out.

 

But thats not what happened in ukraine. the russians got their system set up although badly and got stopped at the sharp end. To go back to the earlier analogy the spear tip got stopped not the shaft broken.