[formerly_proven]

People conclude that tanks (sometimes, armour in general) are obsolete because the most modern anti-tank weapons defeat exactly the 70s tanks they were designed to defeat in the 90s. If anything, when someone makes this point, it tells you they are clueless.

[greedo]

While the names of the Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine sound like the gear we grew up fearing during the Cold War (T-72/T-80 etc), they really aren't the same anymore than the M1 is still the same as first deployed in 1980.

For example, the T-72B3M Obr. 2016 is a thoroughly modern tank, though obviously based on the T-72. Modern fire-control, modern vision equipment, solid ERA, good cannon.

Where it is failing is in how it's being used, even ignoring the lack of appropriate infantry/artillery support. This is a tank that has thermal day/night sights (not IR spotlights). It should be able to see someone lurking with an NLAW or RPG, but they are continually being sniped.

So why? Well, perhaps the thermal sights suck, or were stripped out at depot by some corrupt quartermaster. Or perhaps the crews are so poorly trained they can't take advantage of them. Or perhaps a lot of the ATGM kills we see are abandoned vehicles that are just getting destroyed.

Also, during the 2014 Donbass war, the UA lost roughly 400 MBTs, the majority of which were lost to mortars and artillery, not ATGMs. We see the videos of the Javelin/NlAW strikes, but we don't see hardly as much artillery. Artillery is the king of war...

Most of this we won't know until the conflict has quieted down, and after action reports are gathered.

Tanks aren't obsolete by any means, but the reasons for the high losses are multivariate, a nd not due to old armor being destroyed by "modern" (30 year old Javelin) anti-tank weapons.

[gonzo41]

It's not that simple though, If you fired a a few Javelins against an Abrams with a Trophy system you'd still be at risk from one of the multiple shots over time. And even if the rounds don't cook off, if the EFP goes through the crew compartment, everyone is toast from blast wounds.

I think the main gun on an MBT will be replaced by rocket systems on smaller lighter, faster vehicles like the Boxer CRV family.

Edit just to add,

The secrets out that the idea behind Javelin and NLAW is sound. Expect there to be a proliferation of reasonably cheap weapons in this category being developed and built by everyone.

[greedo]

The secret has been out for 40+ years. The Sagger decimated Israeli tanks in the Sinai in 1973 until the IDF started using combined arms tactics. The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe. The Hellfire (and to a lesser extent, the TOW) dominated Iraq during the Desert Storm, and during the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Javelin itself is almost 30 years old in design.

The only reason we're hearing so much talk about the Javelin/NLAW is because of cheap cellphone videos capturing so much of the war in Ukraine. (And extremely poor Russian tactics...)

[hef19898]

>> The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe

That's what I call over simplification.

[greedo]

Yes, because conflicts between superpowers can be easily summed up in a HN post.

The point is that modern, competent armies have been preparing to counter the ATGM threat for over half a century.

[hef19898]

You can't sum up highly complex topics in one sentence? Shit! ;-)

On a more serious note, I would have counted the Russians in the group of competent armies. Maybe they were during the cold war, Afghanistan is not really a good measure. Maybe they were not, no way to ever find out. All being said, I'm happy that we never found out so far. Because one thing is sure, finding out involves turning whatever region is used to find out into a war zone.

[greedo]

I grew up a military brat, and have studied this shit for years. While I never thought the Russians (or Soviets) were 10ft tall, I never in a million years thought they would be this utterly incompetent. I have some Estonian friends who were concerned about Russia steamrolling them before NATO could really respond (they joke that Russia considers Estonia a suburb of St. Petersburg). And I always empathized with them. No strategic depth, minimal forces, ethnic Russians in the Baltics who could be used by Putin as a casus belli. And NATO seemed sclerotic and weak.

Now? I think that NATO could easily handle almost anything Russia could throw at it, short of nukes.

It really is amazing how poorly they've performed. And the BTG concept has been utterly disproven as a brittle, unsustainable force.

[rightbyte]

I don't think you get much sustainability using guided rocket systems. You need something to shoot at suspected targets in bushes, windows and stuff and expensive rockets wont do. You will run out of them. Dumb ammo is plenty.

[_kbh_]

The Russian tank with the most losses in Ukraine is the T-72B3 obr.2016. This is the most recent variant of the T-72 that the Russians use (and started production in 2016) and has the same armour as the T-90MS which started production in 2017.

The only more advanced tank Russia has is the T-14, but it likely has less then 20 of those and due to the sanctions wont be able to make anymore, so its unlikely to be fielded in Ukraine.