The end of tanks as we know it?

[lartiste]

I am not sure about that from the middle of the war, the Wallies had ample of artillery support too; and the Soviet air docrtine emphasized ground support above all the other belligerents. But in 1941-1942, this is most likely true.

You are most probably correct, many thanks to correct me.

Which would make complete sense, and would be in the best interest for both the EU, the NATO and not to mention the people who live there. However, I seriously doubt that any such deal was ever struck, and if such deal was struck, it could only make sense if Russia could overrun Ukraine in a short war (as they originally planned) and collapse its political system. Now I bet that Russia doesn't fight for Hungary's territorial gains, especially after Hungary and Orbán personally voted many sanctions against Russia and authorized arms deliveries through the country. What I think is more plausible that Hungary contemplates the total evacuation of the Hungarian minority from Ukraine, and let's not forget that Hungary accepts the most Ukrainian refugees per capita. The reason the Hungarian government doesn't support the war is that this war doesn't make sense, and a ceasefire would be in the best interest for the European and Russian populations.

Fo sure Russia is not fighting for Hungary. But Orbán is playing his own games. In the beginning he agrees with Russia, that Russia will increase price of oil and gas after elections. Practically it means, that Russia delayed price increase for few months. For sure such deal is not for free, Hungary will have to reward such favor.

Concerning refugees, you are not correct. There is huge number of those crossing Hungarian borders, but for some reasons they prefer to record in other countries.

Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ukra ... gee_crisis

Practically it means, that they are crossing Hungarian borders and then continue to other countries. Do not forget that the number must include all those crossing border from Romania, since the border between Hungary and Romania is Schengen border, therefore refugees coming from Romania to other EU countries are going also through Hungarian Schengen border (not all of them).

Concerning the Hungarian minority, it seems to be more complex issue. Hungary had policy to give passports to nearly anyone at least in Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine just to keep influence in those countries. I am aware of problem of Ukrainian gypsies who were directed from other EU countries to Hungary when it come out that they have Hungarian citizenship.

I fully agree, that this war makes no sense and did not make sense from the beginning. Russia has it chance in 2014, I even remember Girkin said that when they stormed warehouses, the armored equipment was useless since it was in very bad condition. Now the situation is different. Any ceasefire will be only operational pause for Russians to deploy more soldiers, supplies and equipment. Lavrov said few days ago, that they do not want only eastern Ukraine, but further regions. In my opinion to reach peace which will not be only operational pause means collapse of will to fight either on Russian or Ukrainian side.

Without support of other countries Ukraine would experience blood bath and would be destroyed. To say that the stand point not to support Ukraine in fact means to support Russia. Russia does not need anything else to win the war than lack of support of Ukraine. It is simple as that.

Yes, they gave up some equipment, but they are not depleted. I know the numbers do vary and half of them are fake, so I can be convinced otherwise. I usually use this arms control site: https://www.unroca.org and additionally this one for air forces, because it contains the orders: https://www.flightglobal.com

Although the numbers do vary, the Poles gave some 200 tanks to Ukraine, they are really far from being depleted (their stocks are over 800). Also the Czechs sent "tens" of tanks which hardly compromises their inventory of over 100 tanks. Slovakia actually gave up all its 30 T-72s and 12 MIG-29s, but there is no real scenario where these numbers mattered. On top of all this, the image we have here is kinda faulty about these charity donations, for multiple reasons.

First, the maintenance, repair and overhaul expenses are very high for these units, and the Czechs and Poles (also Bulgaria) do possess the factories to carry out those works; obviously they are expecting to get paid from the international money pouring into Ukraine. And second, all the former eastern bloc countries have a disproportionately large amount of conserved heavy equipment from the Soviet era. What was sent to Ukraine so far can be easily replaced by the stocks. But I expect that no one is going to do that, because of the high de-conservation and MRO costs. I bet the western arm producers are also not sad with these developments.

Poles and Czechs handed over those modernized T - 72, the rest of T - 72 they have is just garbage and it has the value of iron. Of course from our point of view, Russia or average African country may use them. I doubt that Czech army keeps any, may be merchants such as CSG keeps some. But you are correct who knows the reality and the numbers concerning the rest. The winners are clearly western producers of heavy equipment and CEE armies since at the moment the armies may acquire easily a lot of new toys and there is political will to spend money to purchase the toys.

Czechia just announced purchase of 24 F - 35 and 200 CV90 from Sweden.

Just to add concerning the repairs of Ukrainian equipment, the factories doing such works are private so the the private entities will be doing and will get paid for the works. But of course the repairs and maintenance will be paid as well as part of the equipment.

I don't agree. The European armies, navies and air forces are much stronger than that of Russia; and the manpower and economy are much better and bigger as well. What Europe is lacking is the political action to integrate these forces and deploy them under a common constitutional basis; but this lack of integration is also the best interest of the United States. The only significant difference is that Europe's nuclear arsenal does not make it a real deterrence threat since the UK left. Europe does not need the USA to defend itself, but the USA needs Europe to achieve its worldwide goals of domination.

I am not sure whether you are correct. On paper may be, but the reality seems to be different. E.g. Bundeswehr is just joke. They do not have much of working equipment. The condition of equipment is poor. I remember discussions just before the war, that theoretically Germany has available tactical nukes of NATO, but practically those nukes might be delivered only by obsolete Tornados and who knows whether the Tornados are still able to deliver those weapons to the target. More important issue is that there is not real leader in Europe. Natural leaders, Germany and France, missed the chance and UK left the EU. In my opinion the main problem to create European army is not lack of constitutional basis, but lack of strong leadership.

[Aida1]

And when these recon tools are not available ?
Don't forget that Russia attacked with a tiny manpower and as substitution, they used a lot of fire power .

My point was more general concerning use of tanks in wars of 21st century.

The Russians have different strategy, they tried to use tanks, but failed due to lack of recon tools, infantry and knowledge how to operate tanks formations. Now they came back to what is their army ready for and are slowly destroying everything with artillery and tanks are deployed only to support slow move of infantry to positions destroyed by artillery.

I am still shocked, how poorly they were operating tank formations. I read even opinions, that basic problem was lack of crew and that the tanks were operated only by 2 man crew instead 3.

Otherwise I am not aware whether UA army is any better, because roots of education of officers are at the end of the day same.

Tanks have to be used in the proper fashion and that was the real problem.

[Aida1]

Operational maneuver and encirclements require a lot of infantryman that peacetime armies cannot provide, particularly against an enemy on total war footing with inexhaustible reserves of manpower.

3. The technique of relying heavily on firepower over infantry/tank maneuver is correct. The victor is the one with exponentially superior firepower. A way that the 'attrition' phase of operations could be improved would be aimed at a dramatic narrowing of the time dimension. This could be solved with improved logistics, improved targeting systems (satellites, drones/UAVs, lasers, information management, recon, etc.), improved artillery weapons (longer ranged high precision self-propelled guns and MLRS), dramatically increased quantity/and dramatically reduced cost of guided munitions.

Wrong. Firstly, if your opponent does not have a large standing army either, you do not need masses of infantry for the hymothetical big encirclements. Having reserves of mobilisable manpower does not help if your country is overrun quickly. Theoretically Russia could have overrun the Ukraine but not the way and the time at which it was done.
Where your attrition method is concerned, the Ukraine is getting the means to deal with that. Western weapons are superior and can deal with Russian weapons.

[Aida1]

Brig. Gen. Volodymyr Karpenko, Ukraine's land forces command logistics commander:

"So, we have lost approximately 50 percent. … Approximately 1,300 infantry fighting vehicles have been lost, 400 tanks, 700 artillery systems."

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... on-weapons
https://thepressunited.com/updates/kiev ... ns-losses/

Russian MOD claims as of 6/18 are 3613 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, which makes the Russians overclaim claimed Ukrainian losses by 1,900 units. (1700 tanks and IFV lost)

As expected, the Oryx blog under counts claimed Ukrainian losses by 306 tanks, 1,100 IFV/APC, 603 Artillery systems.

I think the tactical environment right now suggests that the concept of rapid operational maneuver with massed tanks, like in WW2 is highly problematic. Artillery, Airpower, and missiles are the most potent weapons for inflicting losses. Tanks are now more akin to infantry support weapons and have to be used carefully. What you see right now with the Russians is the use of exponentially superior firepower to slowly attrit Ukrainian formations on a daily basis supplemented with small advances, leading to a glacial but consistent territorial gain.

I disagree with your point. The basic argument is, that until now, we have not seen proper use of tanks on Russian side. They are trying to use the tanks, but they are far from rational use of tanks. At first I would like to point out the lack of any kind of security of tank units.

Example:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1518889360581697538

As you can see, usual russian modus operandi, all guns straight forward, no one is covering flanks, no drone or helicopter. I have seen hundreds of such videos and photos, when attacked from flanks, it is turkey shooting. Just compare it with this photo from Vietnam:

f32.jpeg

Tanks, even massed might be used, but first of all they need proper recon tools (drones, even equipped with thermovision), cover tools - helicopters or planes of close support, infantry and must be deployed reasonably and properly. We will see whether UA army will be able to perform any better in offensives.

My point is tank is still great tool, but need to be used properly with necessary support.

Exactly. It is all a matter of mastering the combined weapons combat and applying the basic principles of surprise, concentration and momentum.

[Aida1]

BBC analysis article:

Ukraine War - is the tank now doomed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61967180

Article has got it right. Infantrymen with portable At weapons are no match for a concentrated attack by an armor force well supported by artillery and air and using its high speed in the right type of terrain.

[Cult Icon]

Just my point towards Russian army. It is conscript army, only partially professional army. I Ukraine they are using:

1. professional soldiers
2. conscripts (limited number) and high number of minorities
3. Wagner who even operates air planes
4. volunteers and conscripts from LNR/DNR

but they clearly lacks man power. We will see whether new UA strategy to destroy ammunition depots will work in long run.

And true is that UA strategy only works provided that they can play "hit & run" game. Otherwise they are unable to compete with RUF. My question is whether UAF is building new army in the west part of the country and will send brand new units to offensive or whether RUF is destroying them so quickly, that they are unable to build significant reserves.

Ukraine's only real strategy is 'death by a thousand cuts'.

Russian combat doctrine has been theorized. Pre-war it was identified that they intend on waging short wars, with no mobilization of reservists/conscripts and the use of proxies of various types. The shadow of the war in Afghanistan, and what it did to the Soviet Union has a long memory. Cynically you can see that they are using 'other people' as cannon fodder.

From what I observed the Russian army is like an iron girdle that encircles Ukraine with artillery and vehicles. The army's combat battalions have three batteries of artillery (supported by one drone company, equipped with laser Orlan 10 and other types). Remarkably few infantrymen, the equivalent of 3 , 4, 5 platoons and such. Captured Russian documents floated on social media indicate this shortage, IFVs, tanks etc with a shortage of crews. Even with such low numbers of infantrymen the Russians defend themselves adequately with this artillery centric position. They also have elite units, VDV and Spetnaz.

I wager that at this point a lot more 'proxy forces'- volunteers/conscripts from the LPR/DPR, PMC, Chechen Guard, volunteers, etc. have been casualties than members of the Russian armed forces. They are using them as the main source of infantry, particularly in urban warfare. Much of the Donbass front is held by 1st and 2nd Corps. Among the proxies, the Wagner PMC is an elite of sorts, the Chechen Guard units are a form of close-combat shock troop (counter-insurgency training, as the Russian government's guard dogs in Chechnya), while the LPR/DPR/Volunteer battalions have a more ragtag and unprofessional appearance and are equipped with a lot of older Soviet weapons by the Russians. The latter is the bulk of Russian proxy infantrymen.

The Russian artillery/missiles/air strikes bomb, the proxies and regular forces occupy. They also move the proxies around, like they are some kind of operational reserve. Generally in WW2 thinking we believe that reserves are better-quality forces, but in the Russian case they are often moving what constitutes as militia-grade forces around.

[Cult Icon]

The Russians have different strategy, they tried to use tanks, but failed due to lack of recon tools, infantry and knowledge how to operate tanks formations. Now they came back to what is their army ready for and are slowly destroying everything with artillery and tanks are deployed only to support slow move of infantry to positions destroyed by artillery.

I am still shocked, how poorly they were operating tank formations. I read even opinions, that basic problem was lack of crew and that the tanks were operated only by 2 man crew instead 3.

Otherwise I am not aware whether UA army is any better, because roots of education of officers are at the end of the day same.

Yea I agree, the Ukrainian army is at core a Russian army despite NATO help. The Ukr army has one big advantage, it is mobilized with infantrymen while the Russian is not. Ukrainian artillery is also their best performing and most important arm, it may have performed as good as the Russian.

I do not really buy the 'whole combined arms armies do not know combined arms' theory that is popular from the 3rd week of the war. I think it is armchair speculation. I watched the action and the map everyday. Basically in the first phase of the war they rushed the tanks forward, sometimes with combined arms and often without. I think it likely that it was a calculated loss due to their lack of supporting resources and plentiful tanks. This was particularly evident in the Northern theater of operations, as they would rush tank units forward without flank security (leaving them vulnerable to flank attacks). The Soviets in WW2 did this all the time too.

Currently the Russians in the Donbass just do limited advances, while day after day, they constantly recon and dropping strikes. Recently a lot of photographs of Russian elite troop (Spetnaz in particular) has surfaced on Telegram. The functional role of the spetnaz is to recon and mark targets for artillery, missiles, and airstrikes. They intend to bomb the Ukrainian army to death and that is their narrative in the Russian media. The real mystery, is their rate of progress on this account as the Ukrainians conceal data on their human losses. The Donbass is essentially meant to be the place where the Ukrainian army dies, along with the ostentatious 'territorial' objectives.

[Aida1]

Just my point towards Russian army. It is conscript army, only partially professional army. I Ukraine they are using:

1. professional soldiers
2. conscripts (limited number) and high number of minorities
3. Wagner who even operates air planes
4. volunteers and conscripts from LNR/DNR

but they clearly lacks man power. We will see whether new UA strategy to destroy ammunition depots will work in long run.

And true is that UA strategy only works provided that they can play "hit & run" game. Otherwise they are unable to compete with RUF. My question is whether UAF is building new army in the west part of the country and will send brand new units to offensive or whether RUF is destroying them so quickly, that they are unable to build significant reserves.

Ukraine's only real strategy is 'death by a thousand cuts'.

Russian combat doctrine has been theorized. Pre-war it was identified that they intend on waging short wars, with no mobilization of reservists/conscripts and the use of proxies of various types. The shadow of the war in Afghanistan, and what it did to the Soviet Union has a long memory. Cynically you can see that they are using 'other people' as cannon fodder.

From what I observed the Russian army is like an iron girdle that encircles Ukraine with artillery and vehicles. The army's combat battalions have three batteries of artillery (supported by one drone company, equipped with laser Orlan 10 and other types). Remarkably few infantrymen, the equivalent of 3 , 4, 5 platoons and such. Captured Russian documents floated on social media indicate this shortage, IFVs, tanks etc with a shortage of crews. Even with such low numbers of infantrymen the Russians defend themselves adequately with this artillery centric position. They also have elite units, VDV and Spetnaz.

I wager that at this point a lot more 'proxy forces'- volunteers/conscripts from the LPR/DPR, PMC, Chechen Guard, volunteers, etc. have been casualties than members of the Russian armed forces. They are using them as the main source of infantry, particularly in urban warfare. Much of the Donbass front is held by 1st and 2nd Corps. Among the proxies, the Wagner PMC is an elite of sorts, the Chechen Guard units are a form of close-combat shock troop (counter-insurgency training, as the Russian government's guard dogs in Chechnya), while the LPR/DPR/Volunteer battalions have a more ragtag and unprofessional appearance and are equipped with a lot of older Soviet weapons by the Russians. The latter is the bulk of Russian proxy infantrymen.

The Russian artillery/missiles/air strikes bomb, the proxies and regular forces occupy. They also move the proxies around, like they are some kind of operational reserve. Generally in WW2 thinking we believe that reserves are better-quality forces, but in the Russian case they are often moving what constitutes as militia-grade forces around.

You are enamoured with attrition warfare which is very costly and always the worst alternative. And ignoring that the Ukraine is getting the sort of weapons that can make Russia artillery much less effective.

[Aida1]

The Russians have different strategy, they tried to use tanks, but failed due to lack of recon tools, infantry and knowledge how to operate tanks formations. Now they came back to what is their army ready for and are slowly destroying everything with artillery and tanks are deployed only to support slow move of infantry to positions destroyed by artillery.

I am still shocked, how poorly they were operating tank formations. I read even opinions, that basic problem was lack of crew and that the tanks were operated only by 2 man crew instead 3.

Otherwise I am not aware whether UA army is any better, because roots of education of officers are at the end of the day same.

Yea I agree, the Ukrainian army is at core a Russian army despite NATO help. The Ukr army has one big advantage, it is mobilized with infantrymen while the Russian is not. Ukrainian artillery is also their best performing and most important arm, it may have performed as good as the Russian.

I do not really buy the 'whole combined arms armies do not know combined arms' theory that is popular from the 3rd week of the war. I think it is armchair speculation. I watched the action and the map everyday. Basically in the first phase of the war they rushed the tanks forward, sometimes with combined arms and often without. I think it likely that it was a calculated loss due to their lack of supporting resources and plentiful tanks. This was particularly evident in the Northern theater of operations, as they would rush tank units forward without flank security (leaving them vulnerable to flank attacks). The Soviets in WW2 did this all the time too.

Currently the Russians in the Donbass just do limited advances, while day after day, they constantly recon and dropping strikes. Recently a lot of photographs of Russian elite troop (Spetnaz in particular) has surfaced on Telegram. The functional role of the spetnaz is to recon and mark targets for artillery, missiles, and airstrikes. They intend to bomb the Ukrainian army to death and that is their narrative in the Russian media. The real mystery, is their rate of progress on this account as the Ukrainians conceal data on their human losses. The Donbass is essentially meant to be the place where the Ukrainian army dies, along with the ostentatious 'territorial' objectives.

That is a load of nonsense. Funny you mention armchair speculation as you are the typical armchair general who thinks he becomes a military expert just by reading books on military history and no military experience.
Russia tried to overrun the Ukraine and failed badly. Taking the Donbass is not what was really intended. Your love for Russia makes you blind to that. Russia failed badly in combined arms warfare and does not master maneuver warfare. Attrition will not work either with the weapons the Ukraine receives now.

[von thoma]

Can you tell me which was the most used tank in Vietnam by the U.S. Army ? Maybe Sheridan tanks ?
Was the M 47 obsolete in those years ?
Thanks.

[wirklich]

There were approximately 600 M48 tanks in Vietnam. There were approximately 200 Sheridan tanks. The M47 was declared obsolete in 1957.
https://www.military.com/video/combat-v ... 2843954001 at 2:46 an AVLB on a M60 hull can be seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gv0S298ky0 Ben Het, 1969 was the only US armor vs communist armor engagement in the war.
Sheridans can be seen at 13:35
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wh ... HoverTitle
The M60 was used in Germany.

[von thoma]

Good info, Thanks wirklich.

[Cult Icon]

Russian/DPR Assault Tactics Against Ukraine Trench 2022/8/21

[Aida1]

It is not the end of the tank.
https://youtu.be/kxzs-qHnkqI

[Gooner1]

Russian/DPR Assault Tactics Against Ukraine Trench 2022/8/21

And Russian advances in Pisky in the succeeding six weeks



I bet everyone will be studying Russian techniques in the future..