The end of tanks as we know it?

Discussions on other historical eras.
gebhk
Member
Posts: 2211
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by gebhk » 23 Mar 2022 20:37

The Polish campaign of 1939 proved him wrong.
Not really. What it did prove was that (a) tanks attacking without artillery support even if they have infantry support, get a shellacking and (b) tanks attacking a city prepared for defence will get creamed. Even by an enemy as poorly equipped with anti-tank weapons as the Polish army was in 1939. In short, as the general said, tanks could not run around the battlefield; they had to work in close cooperation with artillery and infantry to be successful.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yoozername » 23 Mar 2022 21:46

It is really hard to say at this point. That is, "Are tanks too vulnerable", or "are the Russians too inept". Clearly, the Thunder Run(s) were a Blunder. Russia was convinced that the world would do nothing (sorta), and the US was being led by a boob. The Russians were massing on that border and JoeBama gave Putin the green light on a pipeline? Eh, politics. Perhaps the Afghanistan debacle signalled the US would not interfere at all. Sort of stupid for the US to announce "they will attack, we will have to wait to see if it is just an incursion or not"... So, Russian attack ineptitude saved the day it seems...Russian ineptitude was greater than POTUS boobitude.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5098
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Richard Anderson » 23 Mar 2022 23:09

Yoozername wrote:
23 Mar 2022 21:46
The Russians were massing on that border and JoeBama gave Putin the green light on a pipeline?
Good you tacked a question mark to the end of that, since it is not true. The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all opposed Nordstream 2.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

PunctuationHorror
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 05 Jun 2021 16:41
Location: America

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by PunctuationHorror » 23 Mar 2022 23:33

Steve wrote:
23 Mar 2022 16:39
According to an article I read by an ex US soldier Turkish drones are not cutting edge technology and the reason they have been so successful is because the armies they have operated against are second rate. The bandwidth they operate on, GPS signals whatever can be jammed and you would expect the Russian army to have prepared for drones but seemingly they haven’t.
These drones are slow, (relatively) small, are largely made of plastic and are propelled like a lawn mover (lol). All this makes them hard to counter with AA systems because their radar signal, thermal signature, speed and size are completely different compared to any target these AA systems have been built for in the last ~60 years. They occupy a niche. Blind spot. So basically, we are back in the pre jet aircraft era and bundled machine guns or autocannons could be a viable counter. Wonder when Russia will revive their old ZPUs and Shilkas. Maybe helicopters could be used in air-to-air role with a bunch of them 'on steady watch' in close cooperation with ground forces.

I honestly doubt that any 'not second rate' army in Europe would fare considerably better against these drones. Revival of 2cm Flakvierling? Even the IDF (iron dome etc) or the US forces would have problems, as they too do not really cover this special niche. Don't know how Asian armies would handle it.

Tanks and vehicles need functionning active protection systems against ATGMs and drone started air-to-surface missiles. This will be the future. However, these active protection systems probably could be neutralized in practice by overflowing, i.e. launching several ATGMs simultaneously or in short sequence on the same tank/target - or mix ATGMs with classical RPGs for the same effect. 5 ATGMs in exchange for one tank are still a bargain.

I wondered why the Russians do/did not put explosive elements of reactive armour on these 'cope cages' on top of the tank turrets. Would expect them to be more beneficial than sandbags against ATGMs.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 3576
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Cult Icon » 24 Mar 2022 05:11

https://i.redd.it/a4lq9mrol3p81.jpg

what are the Russian claims for Ukrainian losses?

In this news site they put 1558 Ukr tanks..

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yoozername » 24 Mar 2022 05:31

Richard Anderson wrote:
23 Mar 2022 23:09
Yoozername wrote:
23 Mar 2022 21:46
The Russians were massing on that border and JoeBama gave Putin the green light on a pipeline?
Good you tacked a question mark to the end of that, since it is not true. The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all opposed Nordstream 2.
Good I have no idea what you mean. JoeBama is my derisive term for Biden.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674
Last edited by Yoozername on 24 Mar 2022 05:37, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yoozername » 24 Mar 2022 05:35

Top attack munitions seem to be shining. It could actually be much worse if the Ukrainian air force could drop cluster bomblets (HEAT) to create traffic jams. That is, a deep attack effect that I believe was called 'Air Land Battle' once? Just creating a heap of wrecks every few clicks, and the poor follow on guys would get the message. I think the Russian air defense would be better manned than the T-72 reservists though. So, that might be tricky. Actually, I think the whole Ukrainian air force should have went over to Turkey for safe keeping. Eh.

Solving the 'thin-roof' problem might mean the end of crewmen in turrets. Ammo being fully automated as far as loading from storage, and kept in blast out areas like the M1 Abrams does. The Russians are tossing turrets and it is mostly internal ammo explosions causing it. Systems to defend against top attack, and mitigating a large stand-off shaped charge are needed. I am actually wondering how effective the reactive armor is to typical point detonating HEAT projectiles also. It looks like some old RPGs are doing some kills. I guess time will tell...if the Ukranians win, that is.

In any case, the Javelin, being a IR driven 'Fire-n-Forget' system, might be susceptible to flares that match the thermal signature of the tank. The javelin gunner also uses a laser in his acquisition of targets. Having laser alarms is not new. So, a lased tank might get a direction of the attack, take evasive maneuver, fire off smoke as well as flares. Having responsive air cover and artillery, being alerted regarding the direction of attack, could take some of the confidence from the AT gunners.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yoozername » 24 Mar 2022 06:02


I wondered why the Russians do/did not put explosive elements of reactive armour on these 'cope cages' on top of the tank turrets. Would expect them to be more beneficial than sandbags against ATGMs.
Both the Javelin, and TOW2, are 'touchless' in that they do not actually hit the target. They are over the target and detonate by proximity. The shaped charge(s) can defeat reactive armor anyway. I don't know what the 'cope cage' is designed to do besides defeating bomblets or old RPG shots from above.

I wonder if reactive armor is obsolete.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yuri » 24 Mar 2022 06:46

Cult Icon wrote:
24 Mar 2022 05:11
https://i.redd.it/a4lq9mrol3p81.jpg

what are the Russian claims for Ukrainian losses?

In this news site they put 1558 Ukr tanks..
It says "Tanks and other armored vehicles", which means 1558 is a total of all types of armored vehicles, including about 500 tanks (from another source)

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yuri » 24 Mar 2022 09:06

A preliminary analysis of the monthly course of active warfare allows us to state the continuation of the permanent value of the system of three expressions:
1. Artillery is the God of War (I. Stalin);
2. Tank without infantry is a coffin for four;
3. Infantry without a tank is a pile of meat in a meadow.

P.S. The last two expressions belong to the veteran of the Great Patriotic War, Senior Lieutenant Chernets, commander of the 3rd tank company of the tank battalion of the 210th Motorized Rifle Regiment of the 48th Motorized Rifle Division. I first heard these expressions from him exactly fifty years ago.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Yoozername » 24 Mar 2022 10:52

Yes. For rookie tactics.

Even people here speak of "what does that tank do"......

That is Tank 101...you fight and act as a Platoon at the MINIMUM!

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 3576
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Cult Icon » 24 Mar 2022 14:01

Yuri wrote:
24 Mar 2022 06:46
It says "Tanks and other armored vehicles", which means 1558 is a total of all types of armored vehicles, including about 500 tanks (from another source)
Did the Russian MOD give out claims for Ukr figures?

A mystery to me is how many operational reserves are left, and whether or not it is significant.

Over the past 2-3 days the Ukr have started to counterattack the base of the salient northwest of Kyiv, among the Russian forces that hold it are the 31st Air Assault Brigade. They announced that they are trying to cut the supply line.

Thermo imaging:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOkVkR5WYAM ... name=large

Speculation on the Russian units:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOkH8ntXwAA ... name=large

Also according to Russian sources they attacked Izyum with "two battalions, 1 company of tanks" and were repelled with Russian artillery and air support.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 3576
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Cult Icon » 24 Mar 2022 15:34

To add there is the mystery of the 'invisible' Ukr tanks. They are supposed to have 2200-800 according to open source estimates. Did the Russians destroy most of them or are most of them in operational reserve?

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2862
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 24 Mar 2022 18:34

Yuri wrote:
24 Mar 2022 06:46
It says "Tanks and other armored vehicles", which means 1558 is a total of all types of armored vehicles, including about 500 tanks (from another source)
A good, balanced source based on photographic evidence is here:

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/a ... t.html?m=1

Latest tank figures are:

Russian losses: 280
Ukrainian losses: 74

The 525 is a misquote (whether accidental or deliberate might be a good question for all readers to consider) as that is for total equipment losses, for which the totals are:

Russian losses: 1785
Ukrainian losses: 525

There is no doubt that losses for both sides are higher as this tally is reported to be based entirely on photographic evidence.

It is pretty up to date though as it includes the Russian landing ships targeted this morning.
Russian Landing Craft damage - 24 Mar 22.JPG
Regards

Tom
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5098
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The end of tanks as we know it?

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Mar 2022 18:58

Cult Icon wrote:
24 Mar 2022 15:34
To add there is the mystery of the 'invisible' Ukr tanks. They are supposed to have 2200-800 according to open source estimates. Did the Russians destroy most of them or are most of them in operational reserve?
The problem appears to be that Ukrainian forces north of Kyiv effectively channelized the Russian attack by blowing bridges and inundating much of the area, forcing all vehicles road-bound. The problem is while it is an excellent defensive tactic, eventually you may want to counterattack and are presented with the same obstacle. It remains to be seen how calculated the Ukrainian tactic was and whether or not they left themselves pre-planned counterattack corridors or if they simply have chosen to rely on their infantry superiority while they bide their time.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “Other eras”