[hef19898]

>> The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver.

Doctrine and training are paramount, together with command and control that's what enabled the early German successes in WW1. And in the case of France a ton of luck.

The article asks the right question: is the role of the tank still needed? A Javelin neutralizes a tank, under the right conditions, it doesn't replace it.

[zip1234]

I saw some tanker on twitter explaining just how bad the Russian tactics with their tanks are. Poor training, poor logistics, and undermanned. Tanks get such poor gas mileage that they need tons of support. Extremely effective weapons when used properly but clearly Russia is not doing that.

[hef19898]

Thr Turkish army lost a couple of top of the line Leopard 2s in Syria some years ago for the exact same reason: lack of infantry support.

Seems that the "West", spearheaded by the US, has the most experienced military in the world at the moment. 20 years of counter insurgency warfare and some more conventional wars before that seriously helped a lot. Just how much is at display in Ukraine, first by the, so far, Russian failures and second by the preparation and performance of the Ukrainians, which where supported, cinsulted and equiped by NATO for years by now.

[fork1]

There is an issue with that, being efficient in conter insurgency warfare doesn't necessarily translate into High Intensity warfare. Infantry support for armor is one, but things like maneuvers, operating under contested skies, EW, etc. When were NATO troops under heavy sustained artillery barrages?

I m quite impressed by the attrition in both troops, ammo, and material. More than Wunderwaffen, i think the lesson is more in trained personel reserves, as well as stockpiles.

[throwmeariver1]

They were the export version without active armor…

[greedo]

You mean reactive armor? The Leopard doesn't have active armor (or reactive like Kontakt-5 etc). It's been tested with Trophy APS, but the Turks didn't have that.

[swader999]

On the note of logistics, the turrrets on these lose their rifling after a few hundred rounds, they need to be replaced in field after this or they just become much less precise. Same with artillery.

[fork1]

I do not know for tanks, but for artillery, it tends to be much higher (few thousands) It is quite variable depending on if you re firing full charges, firing when the tube is hot, etc.

[swader999]

Yeah, the exact number is probably classified and precision does fall off with use.

[jakogut]

The M1 Abrams, along with many other modern tanks, has a smoothbore cannon.

[hef19898]

The only NATO tank with a rifled cannon is the Challenger 2. The Brits preferred HEASH ammo, a rifled cannon improved accuracy. It took some development to get HEAT and SABOTs that can be fired from a rifled cannon. No idea what the Russian tanks are using.

EDIT: Just looked, the T-72 has a 125 mm smoothbore cannon.

[greedo]

Current models do, but the original M1 and M1IP were armed with the M68 105mm rifled gun (basically a licensed British L7).

[greedo]

All Russian tanks are smoothbore...

[swader999]

I think it takes seven gallons of diesel just to turn a tank on.

[usrbinbash]

But if a military investment worth several million dollars (a tank) can be neutralized by something that is an order of magnitude cheaper to produce (an ATGM), then how can it fulfill its intended role?

[hef19898]

Read the submitted article for details, but it comes basically down to the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank) to get infantry close enough to engage the target. Without said tank, the infantry will be eliminated by enemy artillery and static defenses. So the trick is to protect the tanks. That is done by suppressing enemy positions with artillery and air support. And to protect your air assets, you need artillery to suppress enemy anti-air positions.

Basically, it is doctrine and some technical solutions (Javelins attack tanks from the top as opposed horizontally like older anti-tank missiles) that will enable the tank to do its job.

It's curious so, that nobody asks these questions when it comes to fighter aircraft and helicopters. Because those are vulnerable to manpads as well, and the war in Ukraine shows this pretty clearly. I guess burned out tank make for better footage then some small pieces or debris in some field that only experts can tell which aircraft it used to be once.

[usrbinbash]

> the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank)

Offensive destructive power can be provided by air support, long range self-guiding weapons and drone weaponry as well.

I also don't believe that ATGMs mean "Tanks are already obsolete". But I do think they are under threat of becoming so, because: ATGMs will get better, as will drones. Meanwhile, a tank will always be a big hunk of metal moving comparatively slowly on the ground.

[hef19898]

Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin, that's one of the (potential) reasons why neither side has air dominance over Ukraine. And long-range guided weapons are awfully expensive. And they need eyes on the ground. And they cannot carry infantry into battle, nor can infantry hide behind them.

EDIT: The point is that a tank will be made obsolete by weapon system that replaces the tanks function on the battlefield. And not by a system that can destroy a tank. Because those anti-tank systems exist since WW1. Initially the Germans were not that impressed by tanks, large caliber rifles and re-purposed field guns worked just fine against the first tanks the French and British used. Nobody stopped tank, or anti-tank weapon, development then so. I don't see a reason why anybody would stop tank development just because we have impressive Javelin footage. If anything, tanks will improve to increase protection against ATGMs and drones. As will tactics and doctrine.

[throwawayffffas]

> Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin

They are not, the fact the Russians have lost so many planes is a testament to their inability to suppress the Ukrainian air defense.

Fighters are capable of flying far higher than MANPAD ceilings the only reason to fly that low is to employ visually guided weapons under cloud cover or to attempt to hide behind the terrain against longer range air defense systems.

Both of these issues can be resolved. By suppressing the enemy long range air defense and by employing laser guided weapons along with ground based designators.

Also fighters can evade missiles, google f16 dodges 6 sams for an extreme example.

[greedo]

It depends. If you're like Russia and only have limited stocks of PGMs, then you're stuck using dumb bombs and S-8 unguided rockets. So you either bomb from high altitude, which isn't really air support, much less CAS, or you get down in the weeds where you're facing Igla, Starstreak, Stinger, or Groms. Those will ruin your day pretty quick, and a plane flying CAS is much easier to see (and hear) than a tank. And if you're a helicopter, the same rules apply.

Tactical aircraft in Ukraine is also targeted by Buk/Tor/Tunguska, but I believe most of the aircraft and helo losses have been due to MANPADs.

Now the US is realizing that what it once thought of as robust stocks of PGMs may not be enough for a high-intensity conflict. Production rates of Javelin are pretty slow, and the Stinger has been out of production for a while with no planned replacement. The US Army has always given air defense low priority, counting on the USAF to provide air supremacy. Against a near pear, that might not be the wisest choice, and doesn't help with drones anyways.