On Killing Tanks (2020)(mwi.usma.edu)
mwi.usma.edu
On Killing Tanks (2020)
https://mwi.usma.edu/on-killing-tanks/
92 comments
It does seem like high resolution would make a big difference. If you look at pictures of tanks that are pretty fully covered with reactive armor, there are still lots of gaps of varying sizes for things like hatches, view ports, exhaust, between reactive armor modules, and so on. So a high res focal plane could direct the weapon into one of many sweet spots.
I think the point of higher resolution isn't to necessarily hit the sweet spots, but rather to better improve countermeasure rejection.
Is this also why civilian IR devices are typically slow and/or very low resolution, or alternately very expensive?
My fire department thermal imaging cameras are a few thousand CAD. A smaller, palm-sized one from FLIR is several hundred dollars, but the frame rate is very low. I have a Seek model that plugs into my phone, and while very inexpensive, it's definitely at the tail end of capability. (Still fun though.)
In comparison, I have had a tour of a medical transport helicopter, and got to try the pilot's NVG goggles. It's light intensification rather than IR, but an impressive upgrade from the Starlight scope I got to use in the 80s.
My fire department thermal imaging cameras are a few thousand CAD. A smaller, palm-sized one from FLIR is several hundred dollars, but the frame rate is very low. I have a Seek model that plugs into my phone, and while very inexpensive, it's definitely at the tail end of capability. (Still fun though.)
In comparison, I have had a tour of a medical transport helicopter, and got to try the pilot's NVG goggles. It's light intensification rather than IR, but an impressive upgrade from the Starlight scope I got to use in the 80s.
> Is this also why civilian IR devices are typically slow and/or very low resolution, or alternately very expensive?
I haven't followed the professional/consumer market in IR, but as a general statement: The materials systems that you need for IR imaging are different than the CMOS imagers used for visible light (ie, silicon). The IR materials don't have anywhere near the economic or manufacturing scale, so I'd expect that you'll pay more for IR imagers, or will have to accept lower resolution/frame rates.
I haven't followed the professional/consumer market in IR, but as a general statement: The materials systems that you need for IR imaging are different than the CMOS imagers used for visible light (ie, silicon). The IR materials don't have anywhere near the economic or manufacturing scale, so I'd expect that you'll pay more for IR imagers, or will have to accept lower resolution/frame rates.
Sorry if this is a dumb question:
Reading your link, it sounds like the HgCdTe-based FPAs are primarily an electrochemical thing, akin to the microchannel plate approach of traditional analog image intensification.
My impression of more modern IR-spectrum imaging (Teledyne/BAE/L3 stuff) was that it is basically a bolometer sensor behind vanadium/germanium-doped glass, then somehow hooked up to a cmos sensor.
So, modern sensors are still partially based in an electrochemical process, just a different one that's more amenable to improvements in manufacturing process or something?
I'm thinking of some of the new stuff that can deliver 1920x1080 60hz output - that'd definitely help with targeting.
Reading your link, it sounds like the HgCdTe-based FPAs are primarily an electrochemical thing, akin to the microchannel plate approach of traditional analog image intensification.
My impression of more modern IR-spectrum imaging (Teledyne/BAE/L3 stuff) was that it is basically a bolometer sensor behind vanadium/germanium-doped glass, then somehow hooked up to a cmos sensor.
So, modern sensors are still partially based in an electrochemical process, just a different one that's more amenable to improvements in manufacturing process or something?
I'm thinking of some of the new stuff that can deliver 1920x1080 60hz output - that'd definitely help with targeting.
> it sounds like the HgCdTe-based FPAs are primarily an electrochemical thing
HgCdTe is a semiconductor like Si or GaAs, but it has a much smaller bandgap.
> My impression of more modern IR-spectrum imaging (Teledyne/BAE/L3 stuff) was that it is basically a bolometer sensor
Bolometers rely on heating. HgCdTe (& CMOS imagers) rely on photon generation of electron-hole pairs, which is an altogether different mechanism.
> behind vanadium/germanium-doped glass
The most common reason for putting Ge in front of an IR imager is to filter out more energetic photons (ie, visible light), since those will also be detected by most IR imagers.
> I'm thinking of some of the new stuff that can deliver 1920x1080 60hz output - that'd definitely help with targeting.
Yes. State of the art is UHD, eg https://www.teledyneimaging.com/en/aerospace-and-defense/pro... The issue will be the product cycle, which for the military is extremely long.
HgCdTe is a semiconductor like Si or GaAs, but it has a much smaller bandgap.
> My impression of more modern IR-spectrum imaging (Teledyne/BAE/L3 stuff) was that it is basically a bolometer sensor
Bolometers rely on heating. HgCdTe (& CMOS imagers) rely on photon generation of electron-hole pairs, which is an altogether different mechanism.
> behind vanadium/germanium-doped glass
The most common reason for putting Ge in front of an IR imager is to filter out more energetic photons (ie, visible light), since those will also be detected by most IR imagers.
> I'm thinking of some of the new stuff that can deliver 1920x1080 60hz output - that'd definitely help with targeting.
Yes. State of the art is UHD, eg https://www.teledyneimaging.com/en/aerospace-and-defense/pro... The issue will be the product cycle, which for the military is extremely long.
I appreciate the reply, this cleared up some misconceptions.
Reminds me of a trip to the DPRK side of the Korean DMZ a few years back. As you close in on the DMZ the roads get narrower, then narrower, then you start to see brutalist-looking concrete sidewalls, sculptures, & overhead signs all over the place.
We all thought they were sculptures (there's a lot of brutalist concrete in the DPRK). Turns out they're tank traps! You can see a few pics at the top of this article[0], they're pretty neat.
[0]https://99percentinvisible.org/article/hostile-terrain-tank-...
EDIT: Looks like South Korea may have these near the DMZ too!
We all thought they were sculptures (there's a lot of brutalist concrete in the DPRK). Turns out they're tank traps! You can see a few pics at the top of this article[0], they're pretty neat.
[0]https://99percentinvisible.org/article/hostile-terrain-tank-...
EDIT: Looks like South Korea may have these near the DMZ too!
Page from an old book showing some different types of tank traps:
https://www.militaryimages.net/media/tank-traps.112392/full?...
https://www.militaryimages.net/media/tank-traps.112392/full?...
I don’t think the the utility of a tank is completely obviated. At a minimum, a heavy force needs them to assault and breach at speed under fire. The Russians are not exactly offering a tour de force in optimal support of their heavy armor. I will take their user error in favor of the good guys but don’t want to draw a broader lesson about the utility of the tank quite yet.
120mm cannon rounds are cheaper and more plentiful than guided missiles, which means a lot.
That said, it’s getting harder and harder to understand a scenario in which tanks can be employed successfully against a motivated, competent defender with plentiful ATGM and loitering munition stocks.
120mm cannon rounds are cheaper and more plentiful than guided missiles, which means a lot.
That said, it’s getting harder and harder to understand a scenario in which tanks can be employed successfully against a motivated, competent defender with plentiful ATGM and loitering munition stocks.
Acoup's trench warfare series(?) had an excellent note re: armored vehicles. That dug-in (non-mobile) infantry was extremely difficult to dislodge (in the strategic sense, even if employed as a defense in depth tactically) but infantry out in the open was much more vulnerable.
And by definition, infantry must be out in the open as it advances; distinct from when it defends.
Consequently, the purpose of armored vehicles (tanks, APCs/IFVs, SPGs) is not to trump infantry, but to provide the minimal survivable armor for the soldiers inside to allow them to advance.
And toss firepower on there, because why not, if you've already got an engine?
So, as ugly as the fact is, the important thing is a tank's utility to survive long enough to support an advance. Not survive against all odds.
And by definition, infantry must be out in the open as it advances; distinct from when it defends.
Consequently, the purpose of armored vehicles (tanks, APCs/IFVs, SPGs) is not to trump infantry, but to provide the minimal survivable armor for the soldiers inside to allow them to advance.
And toss firepower on there, because why not, if you've already got an engine?
So, as ugly as the fact is, the important thing is a tank's utility to survive long enough to support an advance. Not survive against all odds.
And, just like how infantry have to use cover and concealment to move on the battlefield, tanks do as well. Tanks like to be in a position where they are well covered and only the turret is exposed, called the hull-down position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down
They have to, unless it's not an option. Which it's not if the defender has chosen their placement properly, and you need to advance.
Which is why "no armor" to "some armor" suddenly becomes non-negotiable, given shrapnel's lethal radius.
But maybe future armor looks more like minimal armor, maximum speed, and substantial EW countermeasures?
Which is why "no armor" to "some armor" suddenly becomes non-negotiable, given shrapnel's lethal radius.
But maybe future armor looks more like minimal armor, maximum speed, and substantial EW countermeasures?
The main reason you still need conventional armor instead of just EW is to protect against rounds from a tank, which an APS is unlikely to help against. I suppose you could try to use EW to try and blind a tanks sensors and cause them to miss a shot, but that seems risky and not scalable. Armor also protects against lighter anti-armor weapons like the NLAW. While the NLAW is certainly a potent weapon, it will not penetrate the frontal hull of a modern tank, APS or not.
Tactical mobility is a bit overrated, it's not like you can outrun an ATGM. Though a system with better operational and strategic mobility would certainly be valuable. Modern tanks can't cross a lot of bridges due to weight constraints, and can only be air transported in the largest aircraft. For reference: the C-5 galaxy, one of the largest cargo planes in existence, can carry 2 abrams tanks; the more common C-17 can carry 1; while the C-130 can't carry any (it could transport roughly 28% of an abrams). If you could get a decent armored fighting vehicle down to 20-30 tons that opens up a lot of operational and strategic transport options.
Tactical mobility is a bit overrated, it's not like you can outrun an ATGM. Though a system with better operational and strategic mobility would certainly be valuable. Modern tanks can't cross a lot of bridges due to weight constraints, and can only be air transported in the largest aircraft. For reference: the C-5 galaxy, one of the largest cargo planes in existence, can carry 2 abrams tanks; the more common C-17 can carry 1; while the C-130 can't carry any (it could transport roughly 28% of an abrams). If you could get a decent armored fighting vehicle down to 20-30 tons that opens up a lot of operational and strategic transport options.
> Though a system with better operational and strategic mobility would certainly be valuable. Modern tanks can't cross a lot of bridges due to weight constraints,
specifically, the Abrams is getting real heavy these days with all the upgrades, to the extent that it's becoming an operational problem. They can't be towed by their recovery vehicle anymore. They're too heavy for their carrier trucks/trailers. They can't use landing craft or bailey bridges. A lot of constructed bridges in the expected area of operations can't support them.
https://www.defensedaily.com/80-ton-abrams-heavy-support-veh...
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-tanks-are-o...
specifically, the Abrams is getting real heavy these days with all the upgrades, to the extent that it's becoming an operational problem. They can't be towed by their recovery vehicle anymore. They're too heavy for their carrier trucks/trailers. They can't use landing craft or bailey bridges. A lot of constructed bridges in the expected area of operations can't support them.
https://www.defensedaily.com/80-ton-abrams-heavy-support-veh...
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-tanks-are-o...
> I don’t think the the utility of a tank is completely obviated.
The whole point of tank, as the word suggests, is to be able to survive enemy fire.
With proliferation of easy to carry weapons that can pierce any tank it is largely relegated to being heavy, costly and fragile mobile cannon that needs a lot of support to stay alive. There are much better devices that can fill those roles.
You should no longer assume that you can ambush anything with your tanks -- with live overhead feed it is easy to spot any tanks encroaching on your position and place any antitank in the right spot.
And then you have drones that you can basically point and shoot any tank from.
I am pretty sure this is the last war where we see large number of tanks involved. Every country that is watching this is click spamming to buy as many drones as possible.
The whole point of tank, as the word suggests, is to be able to survive enemy fire.
With proliferation of easy to carry weapons that can pierce any tank it is largely relegated to being heavy, costly and fragile mobile cannon that needs a lot of support to stay alive. There are much better devices that can fill those roles.
You should no longer assume that you can ambush anything with your tanks -- with live overhead feed it is easy to spot any tanks encroaching on your position and place any antitank in the right spot.
And then you have drones that you can basically point and shoot any tank from.
I am pretty sure this is the last war where we see large number of tanks involved. Every country that is watching this is click spamming to buy as many drones as possible.
Tanks have always co-evolved against their threats. The reason top armor is weak is because the primary threat when the bulk of these designs were originated (60s/70s) was from other tanks or direct-fire guns. Precision indirect fire munitions weren't yet a major threat.
So, when you're rearchitecting a tank today, you're going to protect it against the now-dominant threats.
At its base, a tank is a propulsion system, a gun, and a set of survivability options.
The first two are always going to be relatively expensive, in quantity. So the last gets defined and scaled to meet the expected threat.
So, when you're rearchitecting a tank today, you're going to protect it against the now-dominant threats.
At its base, a tank is a propulsion system, a gun, and a set of survivability options.
The first two are always going to be relatively expensive, in quantity. So the last gets defined and scaled to meet the expected threat.
I guess you can imagine similar evolution that a century ago drove invention of aircraft carriers. When it became clear that battleships would become too large, too heavy and too expensive to meet their primary goal of dominating the sea around them.
Ie mobile platforms that are essentially defenceless on their own but carry large armament of drones and other electronic devices inside enemy territory that is meant to quickly take over surrounding space (surface and overhead) and do quick job of neutralising various threats like enemy personnel, drones, etc.
But I am not sure about that. Planes require a landing strip to start from and large hangars to store them and that drove the basic form of aircraft carrier.
There is no such limitation for electronic equipment and small drone carriers travelling on land. And I think, rather than presenting a single high value target to the enemy, it makes sense to have a lot of specialised units functioning as one through information systems that cannot be disabled with a single successful strike.
Ie mobile platforms that are essentially defenceless on their own but carry large armament of drones and other electronic devices inside enemy territory that is meant to quickly take over surrounding space (surface and overhead) and do quick job of neutralising various threats like enemy personnel, drones, etc.
But I am not sure about that. Planes require a landing strip to start from and large hangars to store them and that drove the basic form of aircraft carrier.
There is no such limitation for electronic equipment and small drone carriers travelling on land. And I think, rather than presenting a single high value target to the enemy, it makes sense to have a lot of specialised units functioning as one through information systems that cannot be disabled with a single successful strike.
https://www.gd.com/Articles/2021/10/06/general-dynamics-at-a...
See: GD's TRX concept w/ loitering munitions and a tethered surveillance UAV
> [vs distributed systems]
See: USAF / USN Next Generation Air Dominance programs, or the European Future Combat Air System, which are declared as "systems of systems" to get the desired capabilities. We'll see how far they ultimately lean into distributed though.
See: GD's TRX concept w/ loitering munitions and a tethered surveillance UAV
> [vs distributed systems]
See: USAF / USN Next Generation Air Dominance programs, or the European Future Combat Air System, which are declared as "systems of systems" to get the desired capabilities. We'll see how far they ultimately lean into distributed though.
By the contrary, according to the article and the latest data, Tanks have the advantage. It's just, fortunately, Russian incompetence and Ukrainian combat skill we are seeing.
“Trophy exceeded our expectations,” said Col. Dean. “Unlike prior APS tests…we were shooting actual threats at actual vehicles. I’m happy to say I kept trying to kill an Abrams tank about 48 times and failed every time.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/army-accelerates-armor-s...
“Trophy exceeded our expectations,” said Col. Dean. “Unlike prior APS tests…we were shooting actual threats at actual vehicles. I’m happy to say I kept trying to kill an Abrams tank about 48 times and failed every time.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/army-accelerates-armor-s...
I agree with the first paragraph’s notes on Russian incompetence and Ukrainian capability. I said as much.
APS is a must but it’s not a panacea. You need to emit, detect and survive a second or third shot. I expect loitering munitions are probably outside of most APS system’s velocity gates+engagement envelopes. I also wonder how survivable and jam resistant APS sensors are.
Finally the way this guy is talking about it…it sounds a little too good to be true.
Again, not discounting APS, the Israelis do this for real - APS makes the problem harder but not unsolvable.
APS is a must but it’s not a panacea. You need to emit, detect and survive a second or third shot. I expect loitering munitions are probably outside of most APS system’s velocity gates+engagement envelopes. I also wonder how survivable and jam resistant APS sensors are.
Finally the way this guy is talking about it…it sounds a little too good to be true.
Again, not discounting APS, the Israelis do this for real - APS makes the problem harder but not unsolvable.
Works great while your infantry platoon has the missiles to pop one or two unsupported.
If they are in force then you get rolled.
If they are in force then you get rolled.
Yeah a well employed heavy armor element, particularly supported by dismounted infantry and SHORAD is going to stomp an infantry element that has exhausted anti tank rocket/missile stocks. Not debating that for a second.
What about spider tanks?
I find the asymmetry of force in vehicle combat very interesting. If a single foot soldier can take out a tank that costs millions of dollars, is it even worth using a tank? Obviously there are tactics to avoid this but I bet it's a pain in the ass to out-maneuver.
One on one a single soldier can take a tank, but war isn't one on one. First there isn't going to be one tank. There's going to be a bunch. The tanks are basically immune to small arms fire. Not true of an infantryman who is vulnerable to pretty much everything. So the guy with the Javalin has to steel his nerves while he hears the tanks coming towards him, then he has to pop up to take his shot and hope no one sees him and kills him. Then, even if he's successful he still might get killed afterwards. The tanks usually have infantry support as well. The article talks about the Javelin having greater range than infantry, but I doubt that is true in an urban environment (too many buildings).
The videos I've seen, which, probably do suffer from selection bias of what is filmable, show ukranians blasting tanks from extremely far away. Far away enough that I would reckon the tank drivers had no practical way to observe, or even counteract against the infantry,especially if they're under some amount of cover and hidden until they strike.
The guidance on these weapons seem very impressive. Most attacks seem to be hitting the tanks while they're on a highway.
The russian tanks are shitty, and have no infantry support. So its hard to draw conclusions about how his would work against a competent foe.
The guidance on these weapons seem very impressive. Most attacks seem to be hitting the tanks while they're on a highway.
The russian tanks are shitty, and have no infantry support. So its hard to draw conclusions about how his would work against a competent foe.
I'm no expert but ....I guess it's similar to an aircraft carrier. Alone it's massively vulnerable from asymmetric attacks, but when properly protected can be powerful and effective.
Yes. As in paper/rock/scissors, vulnerability is only part of the story. Glass has huge compressive strength but fails under very low tensile stress, diamond is the hardest material but will shatter easily under a (large) hammer...
To be fair, the protection in this case is the threat of retaliation.
They are still effective if deployed correctly. That entails using a "combined arms" approach where the tank is supported by infantry, stationary artillery, advanced recon, etc. Aerial support from helicopters can be very useful in spotting and taking out tank killing teams, although they have their own vulnerabilities: if the opposition has javelins they also probably have some type of SAM. But that's where recon and good Intel along with infantry come in: address the threats to heavy hitters like tanks and air support so those heavy hitters can do their job.
It's hard to know exactly what's gone wrong for Russia in Ukraine, but the reports we're getting point to a huge failure to properly implement combined arms & close support tactics. It seems Russia either didn't anticipate the need-- thought they'd flatten their way to Kyiv so fast it didn't matter-- or their forces consist too much of undertrained non-professional conscripts. The conscript tour of duty in Russia is really too short to hammer home complex tactics and discipline for this sort of thing. 12 months is just too little time to game out the variety of scenarios they might encounter, and so when the one they were (presumably) trained for in this invasion meets initial resistance they don't know how to react. And that's before the logistics issues enter into things... Unfortunately that means Russia may fall back to simply bombing things to rubble and picking up the pieces. It looks like their plan was to take the country & install a friendly government fast enough to keep infrastructure and cities mostly intact, but now that that has failed it looks like they're moving towards the "rubble" approach which does not require the same level of ground training and tactics. Air superiority and long range artillery by Russia can do that.
It's hard to know exactly what's gone wrong for Russia in Ukraine, but the reports we're getting point to a huge failure to properly implement combined arms & close support tactics. It seems Russia either didn't anticipate the need-- thought they'd flatten their way to Kyiv so fast it didn't matter-- or their forces consist too much of undertrained non-professional conscripts. The conscript tour of duty in Russia is really too short to hammer home complex tactics and discipline for this sort of thing. 12 months is just too little time to game out the variety of scenarios they might encounter, and so when the one they were (presumably) trained for in this invasion meets initial resistance they don't know how to react. And that's before the logistics issues enter into things... Unfortunately that means Russia may fall back to simply bombing things to rubble and picking up the pieces. It looks like their plan was to take the country & install a friendly government fast enough to keep infrastructure and cities mostly intact, but now that that has failed it looks like they're moving towards the "rubble" approach which does not require the same level of ground training and tactics. Air superiority and long range artillery by Russia can do that.
Generally, yes, and tanks usually roll with air support if not also infantry. Russia's neglect of this armchair-strategist type knowledge is making headlines.
Tanks without infantry support are basically just targets. Especially in urban environments, the Turkish army showed that quite impressively in Syria (?) by loosing a couple of Leopard 2s.
The Russians supposedly had a tank chassis with soft weapons ( machine guns, small cannon, grenade launchers) on top, to accompany tanks in urban environments, specifically due to lessons from Checnhya about the vulnerability of tanks against infantry defenses, especially in urban environments - BMPT. Supposedly the idea was to have them accompany tanks and support them. In reality, they are nowhere to be seen
BMPTs were seen heading into theater on railcars. I've seen nothing since, but I suspect they're out there somewhere.
I also suspect they would fare little better than a lone T-80 wandering around an urban environment without competent infantry support. Also, BMPT was designed around the Grozny threat environment: antiarmor teams on rooftops raining down RPGs and Molotov cocktails from above. The Ukrainians haven't been forced to resort to those tactics (yet) as they have advanced Western weapons to employ from greater distances and with greater lethality.
I also suspect they would fare little better than a lone T-80 wandering around an urban environment without competent infantry support. Also, BMPT was designed around the Grozny threat environment: antiarmor teams on rooftops raining down RPGs and Molotov cocktails from above. The Ukrainians haven't been forced to resort to those tactics (yet) as they have advanced Western weapons to employ from greater distances and with greater lethality.
Tanks help anchor infantry to the front line. They are mobile fortification. But they are more for open field combat than for urban combat. You're not the only one seeing tanks as partially obsolete. Force projection via planes is typically much more important.
> If a single foot soldier can take out a tank that costs millions of dollars, is it even worth using a tank?
A foot soldier with a weapon that costs a tenth of a million to fire. The asymmetry is given in Ukraine because they have enough Javelins but I doubt it exits to that degree in any conflict.
A foot soldier with a weapon that costs a tenth of a million to fire. The asymmetry is given in Ukraine because they have enough Javelins but I doubt it exits to that degree in any conflict.
Ehh I think that's not quite right. A javelin costs a tenth of a million to fire, but you can just hand a few shots to a guy and send him on its way. As I understand it, it's pretty easy to use.
A russian T-90 costs ~$5M to buy, but also requires a crew of ~3 trained people, plus munitions, plus a good deal of fuel, and logistics support to move it around.
The asymmetry in Ukraine is first and foremost Russia having way more troops to burn. Economic and manpower held equal, rocket infantry certainly seem like they have a higher return than tanks on total operating costs
A russian T-90 costs ~$5M to buy, but also requires a crew of ~3 trained people, plus munitions, plus a good deal of fuel, and logistics support to move it around.
The asymmetry in Ukraine is first and foremost Russia having way more troops to burn. Economic and manpower held equal, rocket infantry certainly seem like they have a higher return than tanks on total operating costs
Good point, I haven't thought about the personnel and operating costs of the tank.
The same argument applies to airplanes, but both airplanes and tanks have certain advantages that on balance exceed the risk of them getting blown up.
It doesnt. Modern military aircraft fly too high for MANPADs (shoulder fired ones like Stinger). You require actual air defense systems, and new ones at that. Extremely pricey, restricted and very big.
I would also argue that the advantages of tanks no longer apply when you face anything but non state backed rebels, especially in urban environment. Syria showed it rather well with the few TOWs that the US provided to the rebels.
With drones it became check mate. All they are are giant defenseless targets, just look at Azerbaijan. They are not much use for anything but crushing civilians.
I would also argue that the advantages of tanks no longer apply when you face anything but non state backed rebels, especially in urban environment. Syria showed it rather well with the few TOWs that the US provided to the rebels.
With drones it became check mate. All they are are giant defenseless targets, just look at Azerbaijan. They are not much use for anything but crushing civilians.
> Modern military aircraft fly too high for MANPADs (shoulder fired ones like Stinger)
Not if they're doing combat air support they don't, unless they only use precision guided munitions or cruise missiles, which are expensive.
Not if they're doing combat air support they don't, unless they only use precision guided munitions or cruise missiles, which are expensive.
This is why Russia is losing so many planes. They ran out of the good weapons, and so now they need to fly dangerously low to attack ground targets.
I really didnt think i would see this in in the current year. Jets arent cheap either after all. Thanks for the heads up.
The soldier's anti-tank missile also has costs, and it usually misses or hits without destroying the tank (or taken out by anti-missile active defence). When you add all these up, it turns out the tank/missile cost equation is close to balanced.
The tank's problem is less that it's vulnerable to anti-tank missile, but its high visibility, now relatively weak weapons and vulnerability to air assets (which is also high visibility again).
The tank's problem is less that it's vulnerable to anti-tank missile, but its high visibility, now relatively weak weapons and vulnerability to air assets (which is also high visibility again).
The claimed kill rate for Javalin in practice is over 90%.
NLAWs are even cheaper and easier to use but don't know their estimated kill rate.
NLAWs are even cheaper and easier to use but don't know their estimated kill rate.
Against badly run T-72 tank divisions maybe. Against a modern tank with an active defence system and infantry cover? I strongly doubt it. There are more than a few known cases of tanks getting hit by Kornets and surviving and Javalin is contemporary.
Anti-missile active defense (Active Protection System) is still in it's infancy, especially with respect to tank based defenses. Many of them only work against direct attack, not top-attack missiles, and it's also common for them to effectively attack as giant shotguns to destroy the incoming target, which is bad for nearby infantry. They're also expensive, have sensors that must be maintained to be effective (which are sensors that can get shot at before the ATGM is launched), and can potentially be depleted in a specific sector of attack.
Active defence has limits, sure. There's a long dance between attack and defence.
My point was that the tank isn't doomed there - if vulnerability to anti-tank missiles was the only issue, armies would research and deploy active defences everywhere and the tank would be important as it was.
I think the problems are elsewhere. When infantryman can deploy offensive power outranging the canon, one needs to ask why have the tank when the infantryman requires so much less logistics. If say, the tanks could use a heavy mobile laser, than the equation would be different.
My point was that the tank isn't doomed there - if vulnerability to anti-tank missiles was the only issue, armies would research and deploy active defences everywhere and the tank would be important as it was.
I think the problems are elsewhere. When infantryman can deploy offensive power outranging the canon, one needs to ask why have the tank when the infantryman requires so much less logistics. If say, the tanks could use a heavy mobile laser, than the equation would be different.
I don't think tanks are going away anytime soon. Nothing else offers the same degree of mobility, armor, and firepower. Sure, a Javelin is cheaper than a tank, but a bullet is cheaper than a soldier and we don't talk about infantry being obsolete. People think of tanks as just lumbering around the battlefield shooting at targets, but they employ fire-and-maneuver tactics the same as infantry. So in combat a tank will be moving from cover to cover, with additional tanks providing suppressive fires from protected positions. Tanks don't move around on their own, they are always fighting as part of at least a platoon (a platoon is 3-4 tanks depending on the country) of other tanks, and almost always with infantry support.
I think improvements in APS and maybe some new reactive armor will be enough to keep the balance between ATGM and tank more or less in the same place it was in the 1980s.
I think improvements in APS and maybe some new reactive armor will be enough to keep the balance between ATGM and tank more or less in the same place it was in the 1980s.
https://archive.ph/tvKzW since the original URL doesn't load right now.
I feel like most commenters here didn't read the article - in many cases a single soldier /can't/ take out a modern tank because of their active protection systems.
Yes, that is the premise of the article. And even a whole team with several missiles might not defeat some of these systems. It seems the Russians did not deploy their tanks with these. I wonder if that is what Russia requested from the Chinese. They seem to have a system whose capabilities are untested so far.
Properly employed, tanks are a weapon of fast movement, maneuver, and rapid exploitation of breakthroughs. German commanders spent most of the Battle of France (1940) in a semi-panic over how many tanks they were losing. By the end, 1/3 of all the tanks the German Army started the battle with were total losses, and another 1/3 were "out of action, awaiting major repairs".
Tank-for-tank, the French tanks very clearly out-performed the German tanks.
But France was still conquered.
Tank-for-tank, the French tanks very clearly out-performed the German tanks.
But France was still conquered.
I am surprised Ukrainians do not use remotely controlled mines.
I don't know anything about weapons. Would it be hard to create a detonator that is remote controlled?
Then one guy - let's call him the controller - could watch over a street in which a bunch of mines with such detonators are buried. As soon as an enemy vehicle is over the position of such a mine, the controllers selects it on his app and destroys the vehicle.
If the signal can be sent over a distance of - say - 100m or more, then that would be a very comfortable way of defense against tanks, wouldn't it?
I don't know anything about weapons. Would it be hard to create a detonator that is remote controlled?
Then one guy - let's call him the controller - could watch over a street in which a bunch of mines with such detonators are buried. As soon as an enemy vehicle is over the position of such a mine, the controllers selects it on his app and destroys the vehicle.
If the signal can be sent over a distance of - say - 100m or more, then that would be a very comfortable way of defense against tanks, wouldn't it?
What you are describing is what was called an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) in the US/Iraq war[1]. Very effective against a superiorly equipped invading force. Works great against lightly armored vehicles like fuel trucks.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device
It doesn't have to be improvised.
Some armies have what they call "off-route mines". They are essentially a shaped charge projector coupled with a triggering mechanism. If employed by the kind of folks who care about civilian casualties there are smarter triggering mechanism which are unlikely to be triggered by someone walking by, or even driving by in something less heavy than a tank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=praws6uM--A
Some armies have what they call "off-route mines". They are essentially a shaped charge projector coupled with a triggering mechanism. If employed by the kind of folks who care about civilian casualties there are smarter triggering mechanism which are unlikely to be triggered by someone walking by, or even driving by in something less heavy than a tank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=praws6uM--A
> I am surprised Ukrainians do not use remotely controlled mines.
They do use mines, not sure if remote controlled. E.g. https://twitter.com/nashaniva/status/1503762953148919809
They do use mines, not sure if remote controlled. E.g. https://twitter.com/nashaniva/status/1503762953148919809
But then you have to either put it there shortly before an enemy vehicle will pass it, or you have to somehow make sure no friendly vehicles will ever pass it.
They're fighting a defensive war, not a war of maneuver.
Easier to use IEDs and mines when you're bunkering down and the fields are mud -- necessitating the use of a handful of roads.
I'd bet my hat that the reasons the Russians are surrounding the cities and blasting them down is because they know they'd run into tons of IEDs + NLAWs if they rolled into a city.
Easier to use IEDs and mines when you're bunkering down and the fields are mud -- necessitating the use of a handful of roads.
I'd bet my hat that the reasons the Russians are surrounding the cities and blasting them down is because they know they'd run into tons of IEDs + NLAWs if they rolled into a city.
The big difference is that the Russian army has a strong precedent, and is happy to, blast cities to rubble and kill civilians indiscriminately. It works. For all the collateral damage that the US invasions in the middle east caused, US soldiers generally don't like murdering innocents blindly.
Why use an app if a wire does the same job and doesn't need 5G? Just ask the Iraqi insurgents, it works quite well. And why do you think the Ukrainians are doing that? It seems they holding themselves quite well so far.
This sort of exists but there is no network element as you’ve described. These are called off-route mines. They’re far cheaper than guided missiles but you need to accurately predict where the target will be. You’d also need to be much closer than you’d typically be with a rocket or missile.
Also see IEDs with EFPs, but I wouldn’t want to have a cell phone emitting on a battlefield.
Also see IEDs with EFPs, but I wouldn’t want to have a cell phone emitting on a battlefield.
> I am surprised Ukrainians do not use remotely controlled mines.
What makes you think they don't?
> If the signal can be sent over a distance of - say - 100m or more, then that would be a very comfortable way of defense against tanks, wouldn't it?
Nothing is comfortable in a war.
What makes you think they don't?
> If the signal can be sent over a distance of - say - 100m or more, then that would be a very comfortable way of defense against tanks, wouldn't it?
Nothing is comfortable in a war.
This would seem to be a better response to an occupying force which must patrol captured land, as per Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now it seems the difficult terrain is doing a lot of immobilisation making them sitting ducks.
My guess: It's just not worth trying to guess/hope where a tank will roll over your mines.
[deleted]
Tanks are heavily armored underneath.
You can only set a mine off once.
You can only set a mine off once.
> Tanks are heavily armored underneath.
Not a truthful statement.
They have very little armour underneath, and what they have is just basic metal - nothing technical. They have armour in the front, primarily.
https://i.redd.it/4enb88un2de71.jpg
This was a big problem in Afghanistan, and why vehicles designed urgently in that era look completely different to what we were using before.
Not a truthful statement.
They have very little armour underneath, and what they have is just basic metal - nothing technical. They have armour in the front, primarily.
https://i.redd.it/4enb88un2de71.jpg
This was a big problem in Afghanistan, and why vehicles designed urgently in that era look completely different to what we were using before.
To explain more: weight devoted to armoring the bottom is weight that's not devoted to armoring the front, which is much more important for high-intensity combat. And since the bottom has more area than the front, a given weight of armor will be thinner on the bottom than on the front.
My understanding is it’s fairly easy to detect and jam this kind of signal
I think tanks are becoming a liability more than an asset in modern combat. I personally would rather be an infantry member with an e-bike, a personal recon drone, and a long range rifle.
Tanks are an asset in a lot of situations. Most nations don't go to toe to toe with tanks against Javelin missiles or NLAWs. It's important to remember though that NLAWs are like $30,000 per shot. Javelins are like $200k/shot. Most nations don't have hardware like that.
It is still cheaper to blow up an adversary's hardware with those than it is to fight them with your own tanks.
Of course it is. Most (all?) countries who invade places generally don't invade places with large stocks of NATO's state of the art anti-tank missiles though. Russia, obviously, being a rather notable exception.
Having your own tanks matters far more against a competent adversary, or when you want to mount your own offensive - one that goes a substantial distance, at decent speed.
Such an infantryman would be quite vulnerable to a tank. Out sped (tanks can go > 80kph on terrain even fat-tired e-bikes would balk at), out gunned (excluding the cannon, there's also typically an anti-personnel mounted machine gun), out ranged (tanks can hit over 8k away), and without the anti-tank missiles, unable to damage a tank.
It's why tanks came into being in the first place; they're quite capable against the average infantryman.
It's why tanks came into being in the first place; they're quite capable against the average infantryman.
Back in WWII, the U.S.'s Sherman tanks were somewhat infamously vulnerable to late-war German anti-tank weapons (and the German tanks' main guns). But soldier casualty rates were far, far higher in U.S. infantry units than in U.S. armored units.
Until you encounter tanks supported by helicopters and infantry.
OK, add some rocket launchers or drone-bombs to the equipment to take care of those. Manned tanks will go the way of the dodo, they are too vulnerable. The same will probably happen to carrier groups once hypersonic projectiles are common and accurate enough.
Given how vulnerable carrier groups are already against submarines, I don't expect that to change anytime soon. Same goes for tanks so, they are still useful systems. Infantry is walking around anymore, a tank is good in taking out the APCs and IFVs used by mechanized infantry for example.
Thing about war is, losses and fatalities are part of the game. Nobody is assuming to have a silver bullet that is undefeatable and invulnerable.
Thing about war is, losses and fatalities are part of the game. Nobody is assuming to have a silver bullet that is undefeatable and invulnerable.
Submarines are slow, hypersonic projectiles are fast. Fast to deploy to the conflict area, fast to reach their target. Battleships went out of fashion because they were too vulnerable to submarines. Carriers will go out fashion because they're too vulnerable to hypersonic projectiles. What comes next? Maybe a fleet of destroyer- or frigate-sized drone carriers? Submarine drone carriers? Something which makes it harder to disable the task group with a few good hits.
You still have to launch the hypersonic missile from somewhere, and submarines are great for that. (Russia even has specific classes of cruise missile carrying submarines, with missiles nicknamed "aircraft carrier killers").
Submarine aircraft carriers were attempted before without much success, but drones can be drastically slower and do much more damage with modern missiles compared to old school unguided bomba, so we might see a return for them.
Edit: actually i thought about it, and drone carrier submarines would be risky. Surfacing to launch will make the submarine vulnerable ( satellites and what not); launching like a torpedo/missile from underwater might obfuscate that a bit, but for recovering the drones there's no way around it. Furthermore, actively controlling the drone would emit signals which can be detected by the enemies, and preplanned missions seem to be of limited utility in a naval environment
Submarine aircraft carriers were attempted before without much success, but drones can be drastically slower and do much more damage with modern missiles compared to old school unguided bomba, so we might see a return for them.
Edit: actually i thought about it, and drone carrier submarines would be risky. Surfacing to launch will make the submarine vulnerable ( satellites and what not); launching like a torpedo/missile from underwater might obfuscate that a bit, but for recovering the drones there's no way around it. Furthermore, actively controlling the drone would emit signals which can be detected by the enemies, and preplanned missions seem to be of limited utility in a naval environment
Why would you recover those drones? Just blow them up on target or when no longer needed, simple - just like you do with missiles. The advantage drones can have is a longer loiter time, missiles are a lot faster -> combine the two by having a sensor network of drones mapping the target area, directing missiles to their targets. Add a shaped charge to the drone to give it the ability to do something useful if and when the opportunity arrives.
So, launch a flock of drones while submerged - these could be launched from a single canister containing many of them - and have them move to the target area while hiding in the radar echoes of the waves. Once there have them all pop up to their working height where they map the targets and direct missiles towards them and/or damage/destroy targets themselves. Remember those through-the-window missile strikes in the gulf wars? That thing, but more accurate and a lot cheaper.
Come to think of it, that launch canister can be attached to a torpedo engine so the sub can stay well out the way.
So, launch a flock of drones while submerged - these could be launched from a single canister containing many of them - and have them move to the target area while hiding in the radar echoes of the waves. Once there have them all pop up to their working height where they map the targets and direct missiles towards them and/or damage/destroy targets themselves. Remember those through-the-window missile strikes in the gulf wars? That thing, but more accurate and a lot cheaper.
Come to think of it, that launch canister can be attached to a torpedo engine so the sub can stay well out the way.
> Why would you recover those drones
Because presumably they cost money ( more than a cruise missile in any case), and reuse would be practical. But indeed, cruise missiles are already in the hundreds of thousands USD price range per unit, so single use drones wouldn't be something extraordinary.
Because presumably they cost money ( more than a cruise missile in any case), and reuse would be practical. But indeed, cruise missiles are already in the hundreds of thousands USD price range per unit, so single use drones wouldn't be something extraordinary.
Of course they cost money. Clearly they also cost less money than a cruise missile. maybe you're thinking of Reaper-style drones? These won't be like that, they'll be closer to the Switchblade [1] which is now being sent to Ukraine. Those are single-use "kamikaze" drones for use on the battlefield, the seaworthy version would be similar. The article does not mention the unit cost other than stating it is "less than anti-tank missiles like the Javelin".
[1] https://wikiless.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
[1] https://wikiless.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
It says
> Unit cost US$70,000[1]
Indeed that's very cheap and single-use is a no-brainer. The firepower isn't great though ( "equivalent to a 40mm grenade"), especially in a naval engagement ( the original discussion). You'd need more than that to sink an aircraft carrier; however if the idea is just to render temporarily inoperable, well targeted strikes ( against an aircraft carrier deck, a frigate/destroyer radar/missile launcher) could be enough-ish.
> Unit cost US$70,000[1]
Indeed that's very cheap and single-use is a no-brainer. The firepower isn't great though ( "equivalent to a 40mm grenade"), especially in a naval engagement ( the original discussion). You'd need more than that to sink an aircraft carrier; however if the idea is just to render temporarily inoperable, well targeted strikes ( against an aircraft carrier deck, a frigate/destroyer radar/missile launcher) could be enough-ish.
That is the Switchblade 300, I assume something more akin to the Switchblade 600 [1] would be used for which I can not find any price information other than it being "cheaper than a Javelin". It seems the US Navy has already show interest, albeit for use by surface units:
On 31 March 2021, AeroVironment was awarded a USD26.1 million contract by SOCOM for the Switchblade 600. The system addresses the United States Naval Special Warfare Command's Maritime Precision Engagement (MPE) requirement to engage asymmetric threats with Combatant Craft Medium (CCM) and Heavy (CCH) boats acting as host platforms.
[1] https://wikiless.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade#Switchbl...
On 31 March 2021, AeroVironment was awarded a USD26.1 million contract by SOCOM for the Switchblade 600. The system addresses the United States Naval Special Warfare Command's Maritime Precision Engagement (MPE) requirement to engage asymmetric threats with Combatant Craft Medium (CCM) and Heavy (CCH) boats acting as host platforms.
[1] https://wikiless.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade#Switchbl...
Battleships went out of fashion because the carrier was a better platform for projecting power. Submarines cannot project power, because power requires visibility, while submarines cannot be visible. Carrier are unlikely to go out of fashion unless something better at projecting power is developed, and right now the aircraft that a carriers holds is where it's at. It's more likely that the defense of the carrier will improve than something else will come along to displace it, because the carrier doesn't hold it's own defenses.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but are there viable defenses against hypersonic missiles?
For example: The Javelin shoulder-fired missile that we are currently reading about in Ukraine was put into service in the late 90s. It finds its way to the target using an infrared focal-plane array with a resolution of 64x64 [1]. Part of the reason that the resolution is so small: A room-temperature object will have peak E&M radiation around 8-12 microns, and mercury-cadmium-telluride imagers were optimal for that wavelength range in the 90s. However, processing of the materials was pretty difficult back then, so 64x64 was pretty much all you could manage while achieving a usable yield.
Eventually the current generation will be replaced, and that will presumably include a serious upgrade to the IR resolution. It's hard to imagine that won't affect the usefulness of tanks in the coming decades.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin#Focal_plane_ar...