The end of tanks as we know it?

[Cult Icon]

T-90M on rails in the winter

T-72B3 and T-90Ms have been shipped to the Southern theatre and are appearing in newsreels.

[Cult Icon]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url- ... -wjg6ptp39

Not sure if he is exaggerating like other Ukrainian tank crews for the press as of late.

[ljadw]

The mission of a tank is not to fight against an other tank .

[gebhk]

That may be so, but since 24 April 1918 that is exactly what tanks have done.... probably because for much of the time since then, another tank has been the most effective means of mounting a tank-killing weapon.

[Cult Icon]

the standard issue konkurs and fagot ATGM of the Russian infantry would engage the new tanks, also atgms mounted on ifv, besides tanks. the rpg-7 would have more issues.

russian drone artillery would likely be the no. 1 factor in knocking them out, like the ukrainian tanks. also russian helicopters and aircraft with anti-tank pgms or 'dumb' rockets/bombs.

[Cult Icon]

Wagner ATGM crew in action in Bakhmut

[ljadw]

another tank has been the most effective means of mounting a tank-killing weapon.

That is not so .
Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..

[ljadw]

ONE of the claims from Oryx
Ukraine tank losses
destroyed 265
abandoned 16
captured 144
and a big part of the destroyed tanks were destroyed by non combat losses as accidents, engine problems, fuel and ammunition problems, shortage of spare parts ....

[wm]

Is this true? No match?

no match.png

[Tom Peters]

another tank has been the most effective means of mounting a tank-killing weapon.

That is not so .
Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..

Got any sources for that ?

how about this one:

Alvin Coox, "Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in WW2"

Figure 1: Tank Casualties by source:
Mortar and Misc: 6%
Hollow Charge: 7.5%
Non-enemy: 13%
Mines: 20%
Gunfire: 54%

Figure 5: Calibre of Enemy Gunfire (% of total):
light: 6%
misc med: 5%
75mm: 36%
88mm: 50%
heavy: 3%

most gunfire if from direct fire, non-artillery. The minority of losses from non-combat.

Back to you.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

ONE of the claims from Oryx
Ukraine tank losses
destroyed 265
abandoned 16
captured 144
and a big part of the destroyed tanks were destroyed by non combat losses as accidents, engine problems, fuel and ammunition problems, shortage of spare parts ....

Source ?

Mad Dog

[Cult Icon]

ATGM vs Abrams.

[Michael Kenny]

how about this one:

Alvin Coox, "Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in WW2"


Figure 5: Calibre of Enemy Gunfire (% of total):
light: 6%
misc med: 5%
75mm: 36%
88mm: 50%
heavy: 3%

Probably the weakest parts of the survey. It is a good 'overview' and a primer for more detailed research. For example the 88mm % figure is way too high. When I contacted Naisawald about this way back in 2008 he told me they sourced it mainly from US AAR's rather than detailed casualty surveys. Use with caution.

[ljadw]

ONE of the claims from Oryx
Ukraine tank losses
destroyed 265
abandoned 16
captured 144
and a big part of the destroyed tanks were destroyed by non combat losses as accidents, engine problems, fuel and ammunition problems, shortage of spare parts ....

Source ?

Mad Dog

Source = Oryx which gave these figures

[Aida1]

another tank has been the most effective means of mounting a tank-killing weapon.

That is not so .
Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..

The most potent weapon for killing a tank is a tank. There is a big difference between killing a tank and a tank being temporarily disabled for different reasons.