How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

Somehow after that I still see a parade ground unit that could never have any impact whatsoever on a future war in Europe.

Agreed.  What would be more useful is investing the same amount of money and getting more replacement CV-90s so the infantry they already have wouldn't run out of rides as easily.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

An interesting article in Politico discussing the Russian influence campaign that tricked the US into buying Alaska when nobody, including the Russians, wanted it.  As the article lays out, the mechanisms by which the Russians did this are pretty much the same ones they are using today, though updated to take advantage of modern tools such as social media:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/08/russia-secretly-manipulated-congress-00177644

Steve

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This crap still boils my blood that we still do not have a cohesive plan 2 years in aimed at resolving the conflict, despite Ukraine pushing for one since the start. 

This sounds, unfortunately, likely.

I know there is a theory that rhe West is secretly engaging in a "slow squeeze" of Russia, but it certainly looks from the outside like flailing helplessly and the only reason Putin cannot laugh heartily about this is the clownshow that the RA has been since Feb 22. 

A more organized and determined foe would have prevailed. Russia might still prevail.

The problem of people who say that Ukraine is not actually that important to the West seem to miss that Ukraine is like a domino brick. The West has been contracting and appeasing for a while in the face of outside aggression. 

Ukraine should be the waking call. Instead we see nations failing to create a unified response or unified strategy while Russian hybrid-warfare has successfully contributed to almost half the West voting for Putin-loyalists. 

And Ukraine is not even allowed to use each weapon as you would use it as per the rules of war. What a logistical nightmare it must be for them.

Meanwhile we are seeing the worst war crimes in Europe since the end of WW2. 

Edited September 9 by Carolus

[ArmouredTopHat]

 

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Take a look in the mirror.  If you think you didn't contribute to where we're at now, you aren't looking hard enough.

All I am saying is I am not the one who decided to judge someone entirely, belittle their arguments constantly and then announce loudly to everyone that they were ignoring said person entirely because their opinion was worthless and that I was little more than a stooge. I can quite literally show the various points where I stated multiple times that I respected Cpts argument and chose to respond by throwing the proverbial sand in my eyes. Coupled with his frankly arrogant viewpoint on certain subjects I think its up to him to be a little less abrasive when it comes to debating (despite being corrected on these by people who supplied clear evidence he remained pretty stubborn) I'm not going to pretend I am a saint but I very obviously did not fire first here.
 

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Also note that I'm one of the people that has become extremely frustrated with how you conduct yourself.  You move goalposts, you dodge directly addressing issues, you use double sided logic, you use double standards for establishing points, you have difficulty differentiating anecdotal and statistic evidence, experts that agree with you are sacrosanct and the rest "don't get it", and overall seem to be dead set on protecting your world view instead of questioning it.

How many times have I said things contrary to this claim? If I did argue poorly then I apologise, but I was at several points in this thread having running arguments with multiple people at once. I simply could not answer everyone's posts in detail with the speed of it all. I have literally written mountains of text trying to answer people and you keep coming at me with the 'your not addressing points' routine numerous times. I am doing the best I can here...
 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The overwhelming evidence from this war is that the unique capabilities that a MBT provides has shrunk considerably while the costs for keeping them relevant in the future are only going to go up.

So I'll grant you that there are still some things a tank can do that other systems can't, but I don't see that capability as being so important and so irreplaceable that it is worth the investment.  Especially because putting those resources into MBTs takes resources away from potentially better alternatives.

Respectfully, I am not sure this is entirely accurate. Tanks can still perform all the roles they have done in the past, the difference is that they are under harsher constraints in order to avoid heavy attrition rates ....along with everything else vehicular or infantry based on the battlefield. Everything is having to operate with this new reality in mind, and in some areas the tanks alongside vehicles in general still hold the edge with mobility that is just as important in a environment filled with things that will kill you if you dont move in a timely manner (or can hide)

I think what I am trying to argue is that while the doctrine of tanks is most likely going to change, the base functionality of the tank remains relevant, though it would help with future proofing and longevity with design changes down the lin. I will concede that its being squeezed in some respects, but I do not see this resulting in a dramatic change that will see tanks wiped out in force organisation, at least for a few decades. Perhaps tanks will be less common on the battlefield and have a more niche role that is still important after that. I honestly do not know, I am not going to speculate. I prefer to look at what nations are doing now and what they plan for the future. Anything else is just soothsaying which may or may not pan out appropriately. 
 

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is pure fantasy.  At best it is pure speculation.  It is also very poorly applied logic.

If what you say is true, then why have the costs of making tanks not been going down over the years?  Russia has it's tank production cranked way up and I don't see any evidence that they are getting significantly less expensive.

Putting that aside, the logic flaw is that what you're claiming could happen applies equally to other expensive systems that already offer better bang for the buck.  IFVs, for example, start this race 1/2 as expensive as MBTs and MRAPs about 1/4.  Even if the cost of MBTs could magically come down AND it come down proportionally further than an IFV the IFV will still be wildly less expensive.  On top of that, you have repeatedly admitted that lots of expensive stuff needs to be ADDED to MBTs to keep them functioning in their reduced role, so are you saying they can bring the costs down from today's prices even with all this extra stuff bolted on?

OK, so now... how much upfront investment would NATO countries have to make to see this cost reduction?  Any signs that any country is willing to pony up for that amount?  No.  So this is why it's pure fantasy.

 Tank costs have gone up due to increasingly advanced technology going into them (the same as everything in war these days really) Part of the issue with increased cost is that tank production numbers have gone down, as a trend per unit cost tends to be higher with more limited production runs for a variety of reasons.

All I was suggesting was taking a page from the F-35 project and suggesting this could be partially mitigated with NATO countries sticking to fewer tank types. Though I understand this is largely a problem with manufacturing and is not exactly a short term solution. I still think its worth contemplating in order to make stockpiling for reserves a more feasible prospect. I have literally agreed with you in the past that we need to radically shake up how NATO countries approach defence industry planning. This does not detract from the battlefield value of tanks. 
 

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Putting that aside, the logic flaw is that what you're claiming could happen applies equally to other expensive systems that already offer better bang for the buck.  IFVs, for example, start this race 1/2 as expensive as MBTs and MRAPs about 1/4.  Even if the cost of MBTs could magically come down AND it come down proportionally further than an IFV the IFV will still be wildly less expensive.  On top of that, you have repeatedly admitted that lots of expensive stuff needs to be ADDED to MBTs to keep them functioning in their reduced role, so are you saying they can bring the costs down from today's prices even with all this extra stuff bolted on?

The issue with this assumption is that you are assuming that an IFV and a tank perform the same roles on the battlefield, they do not. Even with overlap that is not the issue here. As for the expensive stuff like Trophy? I think if enough countries adopt the system (which is what its looking like to be in the next decade) then its costs will in fact come down quite a bit. A pretty big if I grant you.

 

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I question your autoloader claims, but I'll skip that.  What you're now talking about is, basically, reducing one of the MBT's surviving advantages as seen in this war -> level of protection.  So sure, the cost could be reduced by making less capable end product, but then it becomes less distinguishable from it's nearest competitor; the IFV.

To clarify the autoloader comment, its not that the autoloader itself is cheap, but more so that the vehicle does not have to be as big to accommodate it compared to a human loader (look how much space a standing loader takes up inside a tank given he needs a fair bit of space to move around) An autoloader by comparison allows more efficient use of internal volume, therefore a smaller tank size, therefore a smaller amount of steel, composites and protection systems needed to cover the vehicle with suitable aspects of protection. I was not suggesting a compromise on protection, rather an increased space efficiency. 





 

 

45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Putting aside the flawed argument at the end of this paragraph for now (see further below for that), you just said a bunch of nothing.  Yes, the CV-90 is expensive, but it is at least 1/2 as expensive as a Western MBT.  This matters, especially because the amount of difference per unit is massive in real terms.

There's also more studies than I can shake a stick at that shows MBTs are the single most expensive vehicles to support long term.  They are also the most logistically expensive to support in the field.  They are also the most expensive to upgrade.  It's tortured arguments like this that indicate you're more interested in maintaining your position than examining it honestly.

(BTW, I think IFVs are also of questionable value.  Just not nearly as questionable as MBTs)

Again the issue here is comparing things that have different roles and judging them purely on cost instead of capability. Sure an MRAP is far cheaper than a tank, but then what do you do when you encounter something heavier? The costs differences exist for a reason, that reason being the tank is going to outperform said MRAPS or IFVs in most situations when the two encounter one another in combat. The tanks is specialised for that combat situation, where the MRAP or IFV are designed to do different things. 

Happy to agree that tanks are in fact probably the most maintenance heavy ground asset around. That's simply a reality of what that size and weight entails (though as discussed previously, we are seeing an attempt to curb the excesses of weight seen from some western MBTs) Though I would say other things are probably more expensive to upgrade such as air defence on a per unit basis. 

54 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Do you know what is more survivable from a Human perspective?  Unmanned systems, artillery, stand off ATGMs, and other things that cost a Hell of a lot less than a single MBT.

Aside from that, I reject the notion that no cost is too much to preserve a Human life.  Especially because nothing is for free and everything has a cost.  Putting mountains of money into MBTs comes at the expense of investments that could otherwise go into keeping dismounts safer, for example.  It also could be put into better educations for children or safer cars or tackling climate change or paying down our unsustainable national debts.  Most of those arguably have real costs to Human life as well, so it's all about choices and I don't think MBTs are a good choice.

Plus, let's look at the life saving possibilities.  50x Abrams keeps 200 men safe.  The same 200, BTW.  100x Bradleys keeps 300 crew safe and about 1600 dismounts from harm.  Moreover, Bradleys are designed to transport anybody so that means that 1600 dismounts is really much higher.  Possibly 10x higher.  So if the goal is to keep people safe, the Bradley wins by miles.

The flaw here is assuming that all of what you mentioned can be done without risk to human operators. Sadly we know that you can have a huge backbone of unmanned systems like Ukraine does, yet there are still poor bastards in the trench that need to defend a position, who typically have to be supplied, positioned or evacuated via vehicle. Ergo someone has to take the shells, and even with all the dangers to vehicles on the battlefield, its still a better bet than catching shrapnel from the far more prevalent artillery systems operating. Its even worse for attacking, where walking to your objective is just asking for you to be shelled. You need vehicles to assalt positions properly in most situations...which then means you probably need tanks to provide overwatch and support....as we see time and time again in Ukraine. 

I specifically linked you a RUSI ages ago reporting showing that ATGM teams suffered heavy casualties at numerous points in 2022 when engaging Russian armour. Even entrenched infantry still suffer more casualties than anything in vehicles. 

I would rather the tank attract mortar fire than the dismounts. 

As for the whole keeping X amount of people safe, the whole point of a tank in most combat situations is to support other elements to PREVENT them from being destroyed. In other words tanks like a lot of vehicles are not just keeping their own crews safe, but also working to help support others. Destroying threats, surprising objectives and providing overwatch, things like that. When time is critical in modern combat, a tank platform can this more quickly than a lot of assets in the field of combat, which is why tanks occupy a role that not much else can fill at the moment. 

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the other aspect you absolutely refuse to acknowledge.  And that is big organizations tend to be very, very slow to change.  It is absolutely crazy to think *ANY* military would look at this war and change 80 years worth of culture and habits overnight.  This has been pointed out to you every single time we've got this far in the discussion and you still insist on a massive strawman of your own creation.

I dont know, seen plenty of examples of militaries adapting with shocking speed. The development of the US army in just a few years during WW2 seems an apt example. Within five years its institutions and approaches had been pretty radically changed from what they once were. Its why I specifically say to watch what Ukraine and Russia do with regards to tank tactics and approach as they are the ones likely to implement the most significant changes. 
 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Quite the contrary, there is a massive amount of discussion going on in professional circles that is questioning traditional spending priorities and force structures.  These are the same people that questioned the value of horse cavalry before WW1 and still had to fight to get rid of them after when they were proven completely ineffective.  Which is ironic because these were the people arguing in favor of tanks.  In other words, your mentality today is the same mentality used by people opposed to tanks in the early part of the 20th Century.

Seems odd to bring up strawman and then proceed to do exactly that not even a a paragraph later. Suffice to say I think this is not a very fitting comparison, ie the battleship argument all over again. Not relevant. 

I get it, there can be conservative forces at play, especially for countries at peacetime, its why I (saying it again) literally keep saying to focus on what Ukraine and Russia are doing as they are the ones most likely to make bold changes to tank organisation if they are to happen. I think its perfectly fine to question traditional spending priorities and force structures, heck I would agree that such scrutiny is great! This still requires answering of questions such as what would then replace X role, which is the entire reason why tanks are still around today, despite their downsides. 
 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

As for armchair arrogance... how are you exempt from that description?  Or are you an official spokesperson for the entire military and, therefore, beyond reproach?  And how about all the professionals who have, at a minimum, doubts about the continued value of MBTs?  What credentials do you have to dismiss them as having no value?

The key difference here is that I am not claiming to know better than anyone, I am simply expressing my thoughts on the matter as best as I can articulate them. I am not dismissing anyone's arguments at all. I am absolutely subject to the same perils of armchairism which is why I typically defer to people more qualified than myself when it comes to military matters. This does not make them automatically right either however.  I am simply trying to do my best to be pragmatic here. 

From my perspective the vast majority of people with insight on this subject have given pretty good reasons to why the tank is sticking around. I would honestly say that you and others who...well lets be honest think they belong in the trash bin represent a rather extreme opinion on the matter. That could be just because of where I get my information, but its my personal feeling on the matter. 
 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again with the really poor understanding of how large organizations and, in particular militaries, work.  Past history has shown that the big organizations tend to be the last ones to change, very frequently long after they should have.  It's why IBM is not the #1 tech company nor is Intel the #1 chip manufacturer.  Those organizations didn't recognize the need to change when they should have and they suffered for it.

Large militaries are, today, still going on Cold War autopilot.  They are also continually failing to demonstrate an ability to fight the sorts of conflicts that are on the rise, such as what the Houthis and Hamas are fighting.  Trillions of USD were spent fighting the Taliban and that didn't work very well.  Or so I've read.

What's really troubling is that despite a very poor track record of winning wars, the Western militaries have stated that they were really geared up to fight a war like Ukraine is fighting.  Now it's not so clear that they are.  In fact, the evidence suggests that they very much are not.

Nope, sorry.  I will not pray blindly before the alter of the military industrial complex.  It is not worthy of such devotion.

Feel like this is more of the same, but please go ahead and correct me on how modern militaries work. To put it mildly if what you and others say is true, we are in quite a bit more trouble that goes well beyond the comparatively minor problem if answering if tanks are relevant or not. Certainly beyond my paygrade to explain or worry about. 

I do think failure to win insurgencies does not mean that NATO are incapable of being able to win conventional wars. Insurgencies are...tricky. 
 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Very bad logic that has been challenged before.  Ukraine is still working with tanks because they have them to work with.  They need EVERYTHING they can to win against Russia.  Since MBTs have not been made completely useless (yet), Ukraine would be stupid to stop supporting tanks.  Especially because they do not yet have anything to replace them with.

So in other words...tanks are worth supporting?
 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

(as an aside, notice above you argued for lighter MBTs and then say lighter vehicles aren't useful).

To clarify, I am talking about light systems such as MGS, not lighter MBTs. The former had real problems with survivability when pressed into roles that were usually fulfilled by tanks. You could argue similar issues with certain types of BMP that are...rather lavishly armed  yet remain poorly armoured. It makes for rather explosive results when anything bigger than a machine gun sneezes at them. 

Whew. Just about made it. I will do my best to try and answer the rest as I can. 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Somehow after that I still see a parade ground unit that could never have any impact whatsoever on a future war in Europe.

I mean, you could argue the same logic with any ground unit in NATO at that point.

I would counter though by pointing out that NATO does deploy multinational units to areas at risk. UK Armoured units being present in Estonia for instance. There is no reason to assume that Dutch brigades might be placed somewhere where fighting might break out, at which point those tanks suddenly become quite useful. Having better equipped brigades means NATO gets more appropriately armed brigades to put into action where they are needed. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Agreed.  What would be more useful is investing the same amount of money and getting more replacement CV-90s so the infantry they already have wouldn't run out of rides as easily.

Steve

What is stopping the Dutch from doing this in addition? The planned tank purchase is merely a fraction of a rather large budget increase measured in the billions. There is -plenty- of room for drones, more IFVs and all sorts. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

What works best for the Netherlands, not what works best for NATO.  I know that is just not going to work but it is a huge flaw in how NATO approaches security.

This is honestly a fair point but its not exactly something we can easily solve. NATO by definition is supposed to respect the individual wants and needs of its constituent members. When we talk about the EU gaining a more centralised army certain people in most of said countries go utterly nuts. It would solve a lot of problems but politically its not happening. 

I still think the Dutch gaining more effective brigades is a net positive for NATO when it comes to useful units that can be deployed in a potential conflict though. 

Edited September 9 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

A case in point for why you need proper vehicles when attacking positions.

[ArmouredTopHat]

Very curious to know how these might be used on a wider scale, they seem to be pretty good so far. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/the-tank-is-dead/


https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/what-pentagon-leaders-say-they-have-learned-from-a-year-of-observing-the-battle-in-ukraine/


Some Further reading on the whole tank issue, I cant recall if these was posted already. 

Interesting excerpt from one of its sources:

As evidence, consider, for example, tank losses. Many revolutionists see heavy tank casualties in Ukraine as the key indicator for their looming obsolescence. And tank losses in Ukraine have certainly been heavy: in a year and a half, Russia and Ukraine have each lost more than half the tanks they entered the war with. Yet these are actually not unusually heavy loss rates.

In 1943, the loss rate for German tanks was 113% — the Germans lost more tanks than they owned at the beginning of the year. In 1944, Germany lost 122% of the tanks they entered the year with. The Soviet Union’s loss rates for tanks in 1943 and 1944 were nearly as high, at 109% and 80%, respectively. And in a single battle, Operation Goodwood in July 1944, Britain lost more than one-third of all the British armor on the continent in just three days of fighting. In the Battle of Amiens in 1918, in just four days Britain lost 98% of the tanks it opened the battle with. Few, however, argued that the tank was obsolete in 1943 or 1918.

Edited September 9 by ArmouredTopHat

[Joe982]

27 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Very curious to know how these might be used on a wider scale, they seem to be pretty good so far. 

A drone dog would get it's feet caught on vines and sticks etc. It would make a lot of noise too.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I've been thinking, the current battlefield shaped by the drone threat has had an unintended effect of also minimizing Putin's threats to introduce theater tactical nukes. A battlefield composed of  small packets of widely dispersed, deeply dug-in units would be a decent countermeasure to nukes as well as drones. Yes, I pity the poor sods directly beneath the blast but if everyone in the surrounding area is dug-in and avoiding (drone) exposure the casualties would be greatly diminished. I have the very vague (and perhaps faulty) recollection of a Pentagon study that concluded a theater tactical nuke wouldn't really be the game changer we imagine. Ach, I wish I could remember the details of the study.

Absolutely. A lot of what one can read now about the even more empty and dispersed battlefield is similar to the stuff from 1950-1970 about fighting under tactical nuke strikes

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/the-tank-is-dead/

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/what-pentagon-leaders-say-they-have-learned-from-a-year-of-observing-the-battle-in-ukraine/

Some Further reading on the whole tank issue, I cant recall if these was posted already. 

Thanks for the links, and don't let our beloved moderator's drive-by pronouncements on your logic get to you. It's just his way. 

First piece reads a touch defensive to me, but as you know, I'm a tank skeptic. Also, the link (unintentionally) reads like "Ole!"

Refuting most of it is largely a matter of: 'that was then, but this is now / things are different this time, no, really....'  And gosh, how cliched is that? until the tipping point where finally isn't.

But the meat of their argument is at the end, here:

With the ever-changing face of warfare, many armchair strategists [lol, sounds like my occasional bar mates] believe that the advantages the employment of tanks bring to land warfare are outweighed by vulnerabilities that new technologies can exploit against them.

Such critics envision a battlefield dominated by unmanned aerial systems, loitering munitions, missiles, and electromagnetic capabilities that marginalize the tank’s utility. Similarly, such views tend to depict tanks working in isolation.

[Notice what follows does not refute the above critique, cuz Big Green Machine knows best, QED. In fact, it's a verbal counterpunch, very Panzerleute. Broken into adj-heavy sentences for better comprehension:]

1.  In the U.S. Army, the tank is not a solo performer. It constitutes part of an ensemble of capabilities organic to the armored brigade combat team that both supplement the tank’s inherent qualities and mitigate its vulnerabilities.

2. The value of the tank lies in the application of combat power at optimal times and locations to create a shock effect that paralyzes and destroys resistance.

3.  Employed in a combined arms context, the resultant capability set of mobility, lethality, and survivability offers tactical advantages that unlock operational and strategic opportunities.

4.  Once committed, these capabilities generate a momentum of their own that dictates the tempo of events and constrains enemy action. These qualities underscore the role of armored forces as the “Combat Arm of Decision.”

[OK, I can kind of buy the 'shock' and 'momentum' bits. A charging bull is inherently more terrifying than a swarm of murder hornets. Until it bursts spectacularly into flame of course because the overwatch safely over-the-horizon wasn't shocked and easily read the momentum]

Recent technological developments do not stifle these traits. Instead, UAS, loitering munitions, and the ability to detect force concentrations via their electromagnetic signature and attack them with precision munitions necessitate adaptation rather than outright removal from the battlefield.

[OK, what adaptations and at what cost?]

P.S. The second link is Feb 2023 and pretty much all stale dated, unless you saw something different.

Edited September 9 by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

19 hours ago, The_Capt said:

but you do continue to exude that "cleverest cool kid in the back" schtick that we have all grown to know and love.

 

Well I can't break into the Art crowd like @Warts 'n' all, so I kind of have to suck up to the jocks.

[Kraft]

I interrupt the 10 page tank discussion thread with Germany bashing. Scholz is reportedly doubling down on the "3rd times the charm" Minsk3 approach. 

 

Edited September 9 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

4.  Once committed, these capabilities generate a momentum of their own that dictates the tempo of events and constrains enemy action. These qualities underscore the role of armored forces as the “Combat Arm of Decision.”

So this has been my point all along…and right now no one has been able to solve for it. Tanks, in this war, as part of the larger system, have not been able to generate momentum dictating tempo. As such they have lost their place as the “Combat Arm of Decision” (I threw up just a little bit here).

What no one, except the most deluded tank-priests, can explain is “why not?” Both sides have got lots of mech and armor. Russia had the 2nd largest on the planet. The terrain is optimal - many of these systems were designed for Europe. The frontages are huge. Density historic lows.

We get a bunch of increasingly thin excuses:

- Legacy of Soviet doctrine: this more often from people who actually have no idea what that was or how it evolved over time. It is also built on arrogance and some sort of thinking that “we won the Cold War so Soviet doctrine must be inferior.” That is simply not true. People can go explore on their own but anyone with a passing knowledge of Soviet doctrine knows that “mass” and “manoeuvre” were at the centre. Unlike the west the Soviets stressed operational manoeuvre vice tactical.

- Mission Command - like they actually know what that means as well

- NCO Corp.

- Combined arms. Russia has demonstrated weaknesses at the start but I find it hard to belief both sides could not figure this out after two years of intense warfare.

Once these excuses do not explain things. People get pretty quiet and ideas get thin. We get “well we need adaptation” and “solve for drones so we can go back.” When I hear “go back” it is pretty clear what is going on. Same cry from desperate capability worshippers going way back. 

War is about harsh realities. If tanks don’t work anymore, stop being childish, defending tanks like they are important. Win the f#cking war however you can, and then we can figure out what to do about tanks. There are thousands of people dying in this thing, we have risks of escalation and further regional destabilization. Anyone who is solely focused on their favourite toy instead of the larger problem is not worth listening to.

Edited September 9 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Thanks for the links, and don't let our beloved moderator's drive-by pronouncements on your logic get to you. It's just his way. 

You are a truly evil being.

[The_Capt]

9 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I've been thinking, the current battlefield shaped by the drone threat has had an unintended effect of also minimizing Putin's threats to introduce theater tactical nukes. A battlefield composed of  small packets of widely dispersed, deeply dug-in units would be a decent countermeasure to nukes as well as drones. Yes, I pity the poor sods directly beneath the blast but if everyone in the surrounding area is dug-in and avoiding (drone) exposure the casualties would be greatly diminished. I have the very vague (and perhaps faulty) recollection of a Pentagon study that concluded a theater tactical nuke wouldn't really be the game changer we imagine. Ach, I wish I could remember the details of the study.

Interesting take and holds some water. Not sure what the EMP would do to UA drones though. It could sanitize the sky for a period of time. My honest bet is that if Syria is an indication, the RA will go chemical first. And not the tear gassy stuff but lethal agents. It is a warcrimes violation but so are missile strikes on hospitals. I am surprised they have not already gone there to be honest. Given the state of the RA a chemical attack would likely kill as many Russians as Ukrainians, but since when did Putin start caring about killing Russians?

If Russia really went for it, we would likely see a combination of WMDs. Tac nukes strikes followed by chemical in a tight corridor they want to try and breakthrough. None of this solves the Russian logistics problems though. As we have seen, long LOCs are fatal to modern mechanized forces in this environment.

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Interesting take and holds some water. Not sure what the EMP would do to UA drones though. It could sanitize the sky for a period of time. My honest bet is that if Syria is an indication, the RA will go chemical first. And not the tear gassy stuff but lethal agents. It is a warcrimes violation but so are missile strikes on hospitals. I am surprised they have not already gone there to be honest. Given the state of the RA a chemical attack would likely kill as many Russians as Ukrainians, but since when did Putin start caring about killing Russians?

If Russia really went for it, we would likely see a combination of WMDs. Tac nukes strikes followed by chemical in a tight corridor they want to try and breakthrough. None of this solves the Russian logistics problems though. As we have seen, long LOCs are fatal to modern mechanized forces in this environment.

Given that Russia can barely sustain a shovel-in-bodies-and-hope-for-the-best offensive right at the end of their GLOC, it's clear using nukes will never really be a utility question. They will be used if Russia can ever see a situation in which that use will destroy the political support either within Ukraine or from Ukraine's supporters in the fight but as things stand now, Russian going even with WMD's will create greater support from the US/EU and likely results in retaliation that the lumbering beast that is the Russian military will have difficulty adjusting to. Can you imagine adding the burden of providing NBC protection to the Russian Army when they already are sending out contract soldiers in track shoes? 

Desperation, mistakes, misapprehension could change the calculus but so far Russian planners have not been wildly successful in changing the game and I doubt the introductions of WMD would change that record.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Desperation, mistakes, misapprehension could change the calculus but so far Russian planners have not been wildly successful in changing the game and I doubt the introductions of WMD would change that record.

The only military way would be to do it big scale. No half measures. Tactical nuclear weapons - multiple strikes via artillery and air, followed up with chemical and a big push. That is a lot of moving parts that the RA has not demonstrated an ability to pull off very well. As to Russian casualties, it would not surprise me at all to see un-TOPPed Russian troops rolling through dirty zones - the value of human life from the Russians in this war has not been high. My assessment is that Russia would do it first on their own soil because then technically they are well within their rights to employ them as self-defense of sovereignty. The West may to split resolve in that case

But we are talking about a military-political apparatus that talked themselves into this stupid war in the first place. Things get desperate enough? Relying on Russia to remain rational as they approach major failure points is dangerous. 

[billbindc]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The only military way would be to do it big scale. No half measures. Tactical nuclear weapons - multiple strikes via artillery and air, followed up with chemical and a big push. That is a lot of moving parts that the RA has not demonstrated an ability to pull off very well. As to Russian casualties, it would not surprise me at all to see un-TOPPed Russian troops rolling through dirty zones - the value of human life from the Russians in this war has not been high. My assessment is that Russia would do it first on their own soil because then technically they are well within their rights to employ them as self-defense of sovereignty. The West may to split resolve in that case

But we are talking about a military-political apparatus that talked themselves into this stupid war in the first place. Things get desperate enough? Relying on Russia to remain rational as they approach major failure points is dangerous. 

I never rely on anything when it comes to Putin's Russia but they certainly have shown a tendency after the initial invasion decision to be risk averse on the very big things. The MoD still calls the US Sec of Def in order to try to avoid escalatory situations, it has not blown up a nuke plant or made more than the occasional shot at the Kyiv dam. And there is certainly plenty of reason for Russia to listen to the restraining demands of China and to a lessor extent India...who have both made it very clear that they will react very badly to somebody splitting atoms over Niu York.

This applies to failure points short of full state collapse as well. An internal power struggle will have factions who seek external support. Whoever seizes control of the nukes and keeps them under control will have a powerful argument to receive external aid. So...sure....worry. But pretty much all of the incentives and likelihoods argue against things going nuclear. 

[Tux]

6 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/the-tank-is-dead/


https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/what-pentagon-leaders-say-they-have-learned-from-a-year-of-observing-the-battle-in-ukraine/


Some Further reading on the whole tank issue, I cant recall if these was posted already. 

Interesting excerpt from one of its sources:

As evidence, consider, for example, tank losses. Many revolutionists see heavy tank casualties in Ukraine as the key indicator for their looming obsolescence. And tank losses in Ukraine have certainly been heavy: in a year and a half, Russia and Ukraine have each lost more than half the tanks they entered the war with. Yet these are actually not unusually heavy loss rates.

In 1943, the loss rate for German tanks was 113% — the Germans lost more tanks than they owned at the beginning of the year. In 1944, Germany lost 122% of the tanks they entered the year with. The Soviet Union’s loss rates for tanks in 1943 and 1944 were nearly as high, at 109% and 80%, respectively. And in a single battle, Operation Goodwood in July 1944, Britain lost more than one-third of all the British armor on the continent in just three days of fighting. In the Battle of Amiens in 1918, in just four days Britain lost 98% of the tanks it opened the battle with. Few, however, argued that the tank was obsolete in 1943 or 1918.

Come on, now.  Are we really saying that as long as loss rates are lower than the Germans suffered during their famously catastrophic series of collapses on the Eastern Front then it's all good?  I'm not aware that Goodwood is usually considered any kind of template for the proper employment of armour, either.  Generally, surely it has to be considered that the tanks fighting in Europe during 1943-45 were in constant, heavy use; regularly participating en masse in the kind of concentrated battles that have been notable for their absence from the war in Ukraine.  By contrast, the losses of armour in Ukraine have taken place despite (certainly Ukrainian) tanks playing a relatively low-profile role.  They've been positively wrapped in cotton wool by WW2 standards.

I would say the lengths the combatants are having to go to in order not to suffer even heavier losses of tanks are closer to what is being considered one of 'the key indicator[s] of their looming obsolescence'.

 

7 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would honestly say that you and others who...well lets be honest think they belong in the trash bin represent a rather extreme opinion on the matter.

I don't think anyone has argued that tanks 'belong in the trash bin'.  Tanks are contributing to the war in Ukraine and, to the extent they already exist and are able to be employed they will continue to contribute.  No-one is arguing for their removal from today's battlefield.

 

7 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Perhaps tanks will be less common on the battlefield and have a more niche role that is still important after that. I honestly do not know, I am not going to speculate.

Ok... I think the whole point is that your interlocutors are willing to think about this and are concluding that MBTs don't look like a good medium-long term investment when considering apparent alternatives.  If you're not thinking about those timescales and are anchoring your arguments to tanks' apparent utility today then are you just talking past one another?

[The_Capt]

21 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I never rely on anything when it comes to Putin's Russia but they certainly have shown a tendency after the initial invasion decision to be risk averse on the very big things. The MoD still calls the US Sec of Def in order to try to avoid escalatory situations, it has not blown up a nuke plant or made more than the occasional shot at the Kyiv dam. And there is certainly plenty of reason for Russia to listen to the restraining demands of China and to a lessor extent India...who have both made it very clear that they will react very badly to somebody splitting atoms over Niu York.

This applies to failure points short of full state collapse as well. An internal power struggle will have factions who seek external support. Whoever seizes control of the nukes and keeps them under control will have a powerful argument to receive external aid. So...sure....worry. But pretty much all of the incentives and likelihoods argue against things going nuclear. 

Valid points.

But while I don't go to them there fancy DC dinner parties, I do know a proper barfight when I see one. And this one has guns on the tables. From experience, things can go irrational very quickly in these sorts of things.

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Thanks for the links, and don't let our beloved moderator's drive-by pronouncements on your logic get to you. It's just his way. 

First piece reads a touch defensive to me, but as you know, I'm a tank skeptic. Also, the link (unintentionally) reads like "Ole!"

Refuting most of it is largely a matter of: 'that was then, but this is now / things are different this time, no, really....'  And gosh, how cliched is that? until the tipping point where finally isn't.

But the meat of their argument is at the end, here:

With the ever-changing face of warfare, many armchair strategists [lol, sounds like my occasional bar mates] believe that the advantages the employment of tanks bring to land warfare are outweighed by vulnerabilities that new technologies can exploit against them.

Such critics envision a battlefield dominated by unmanned aerial systems, loitering munitions, missiles, and electromagnetic capabilities that marginalize the tank’s utility. Similarly, such views tend to depict tanks working in isolation.

[Notice what follows does not refute the above critique, cuz Big Green Machine knows best, QED. In fact, it's a verbal counterpunch, very Panzerleute. Broken into adj-heavy sentences for better comprehension:]

1.  In the U.S. Army, the tank is not a solo performer. It constitutes part of an ensemble of capabilities organic to the armored brigade combat team that both supplement the tank’s inherent qualities and mitigate its vulnerabilities.

2. The value of the tank lies in the application of combat power at optimal times and locations to create a shock effect that paralyzes and destroys resistance.

3.  Employed in a combined arms context, the resultant capability set of mobility, lethality, and survivability offers tactical advantages that unlock operational and strategic opportunities.

4.  Once committed, these capabilities generate a momentum of their own that dictates the tempo of events and constrains enemy action. These qualities underscore the role of armored forces as the “Combat Arm of Decision.”

[OK, I can kind of buy the 'shock' and 'momentum' bits. A charging bull is inherently more terrifying than a swarm of murder hornets. Until it bursts spectacularly into flame of course because the overwatch safely over-the-horizon wasn't shocked and easily read the momentum]

Recent technological developments do not stifle these traits. Instead, UAS, loitering munitions, and the ability to detect force concentrations via their electromagnetic signature and attack them with precision munitions necessitate adaptation rather than outright removal from the battlefield.

[OK, what adaptations and at what cost?]

P.S. The second link is Feb 2023 and pretty much all stale dated, unless you saw something different.

To be fair, there are not many articles from 2024 I can a link that talk about this.

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/05/tanks-take-a-sharp-turn-to-remain-relevant/

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/russia-ukraine-war-tanks-obsolete-9281662/

The crux of the argument continues to be this though: Tanks are needed to help secure ground and have roles pertaining to that effect that are currently not able to be filled by anything else, and will likely to be in that situation for the present and near future.

The adaptations mentioned can be as simple as the Str122s improvements to protection against top attack that gave them surprising durability against FPV drones hitting weak points as an unexpected side effect. Things like APS are the cutting edge that are obviously on the high end remain potential solutions to both drones and ATGMs. 

I think the article you are quoting from specifically points out that a military that dominates other environments can more easily bring its tanks to bear with less constraints. Of course tanks suffer when things like air superiority remain contested (FPV drones are really just a new level of air power at this point that might be constrained by other air based drones in the future, much like how we see more and more Russian UAVs getting intercepted by drones)

 

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

What no one, except the most deluded tank-priests, can explain is “why not?” Both sides have got lots of mech and armor. Russia had the 2nd largest on the planet. The terrain is optimal - many of these systems were designed for Europe. The frontages are huge. Density historic lows.

We get a bunch of increasingly thin excuses:

Its almost like Russia has not been employing its armour properly due to a wide array of issues from training/ doctrine to lack of coordination...and that Ukraine is fighting an uphill battle against an opponent that outnumbers them and outguns them. And you sit here going 'hurr durr the tanks are not working'.

Yeah, no shi*t the Ukrainians had trouble in 2023 with mechanised attacks when their lead attacks are getting hit by KA-52s they can do little about. They were attacking in some of the most difficult environments possible against an opponent which outgunned them and still holds some capability advantages over. Its almost like things like air superiority are really needed to make decisive mechanised attacks, which this conflict has demonstrated well. Or you simply attack weaker areas of the front successfully with less telegraphed, planned attacks like at Kursk. But of course according to you this doesn't count....because reasons I suppose. 

I expect we will continue to see the jostling and attempt to degrade one another's air defence / assets in general until one side is degraded enough to make such attacks possible again. This is not the first conflict where there was considerable attritional warfare before decisive mechanised attacks could be made. 

Edited September 9 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

Expect another Russian blogger to get the Girkin treatment, or perhaps even the prigo treatment shortly.