Does the Tank Have a Future?(economist.com)
economist.com
Does the Tank Have a Future?
https://www.economist.com/interactive/international/2022/06/15/does-the-tank-have-a-future
475 comments
It’s hard to get a feel for what is happening overall, but the amount of video of Russian armor of all types operating alone ( no infantry support) has been pretty shocking.
Circumstantially, its possible these are semi-abandoned and what we're seeing is attrition of the b-grade troops sent to try and recover them.
I suspect like all the other armchair experts this is actually a massive russian doctrine failure, but if I was being charitable I'd say we're not seeing the FEBA in play, this is post-fight or side-fight mop-up stuff.
And, they've been let down by spares, failure to do tire rotations in the last 5 to 10 years, fake parts, fuel quality, you-name-it. A lot of the materiel we see in the videos could be the class of stuff you would also have seen post D-Day: Dang: the duce is bust: ok, drive it off the road for later and move to another truck...
I suspect like all the other armchair experts this is actually a massive russian doctrine failure, but if I was being charitable I'd say we're not seeing the FEBA in play, this is post-fight or side-fight mop-up stuff.
And, they've been let down by spares, failure to do tire rotations in the last 5 to 10 years, fake parts, fuel quality, you-name-it. A lot of the materiel we see in the videos could be the class of stuff you would also have seen post D-Day: Dang: the duce is bust: ok, drive it off the road for later and move to another truck...
[deleted]
I think the biggest issue facing the Russian armed forces is that their branches don't operate well with each other. There's little inter-branch training, the command staff don't seem to know what the others are doing in the same theater, and the like. Plus, I think the fact that their logistics system is based around the train means their ability to project forces further and/or faster is limited. It's easier to just destroy a rail bridge than it is to make every dirt road impassable. It's clear, that the Russian military is suffering from multiple dysfunctions.
I hypothesize that the Taliban had it right all along.
4x4 Toyota Hilux trucks with some sort of heavy gun + a fireteam of infantry kitted out with 1x drone, 1x manpad, 1x atgm.
Far cheaper than a modern tank and far more mobile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
4x4 Toyota Hilux trucks with some sort of heavy gun + a fireteam of infantry kitted out with 1x drone, 1x manpad, 1x atgm.
Far cheaper than a modern tank and far more mobile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
Taliban technicals were failures when engaging NATO forces with air support. Larger tactical aircraft can remain at medium altitude (out of MANPAD range) and smash anything that moves with precision munitions.
What does a tank do better than a technical in that situation? AFAIK they don't generally carry better-than-MANPAD AA, they're not heavily armoured enough to resist precision munitions, and they're vastly more expensive.
Taliban operated in deserts and open terrain.
The situation is a bit different in forested areas. Maybe modern aircraft have thermal imaging good enough to detect heat signatures from out of MANPAD range, dunno.
The situation is a bit different in forested areas. Maybe modern aircraft have thermal imaging good enough to detect heat signatures from out of MANPAD range, dunno.
Technicals can't move through heavily forested areas. Can't drive through a tree. In more lightly forested areas, aircraft targeting pods and radars can pick them up just fine.
Fun fact: Ukrainian anarchist general Nestor Makhno is credited with the invention of the technical during the Russian Civil War, in the form of a machine gun mounted on a horse-drawn wagon.
[deleted]
Why you need a tank in 21st century:
1. When enemy has tons of artillery, and any light armour is doomed in open field
2. The only military unit capable of offensive operation during nuclear warfare
For as long as nuclear weapons are there, there will be a need for an all-terrain nuclear bunker with gun.
1. When enemy has tons of artillery, and any light armour is doomed in open field
2. The only military unit capable of offensive operation during nuclear warfare
For as long as nuclear weapons are there, there will be a need for an all-terrain nuclear bunker with gun.
How long does the crew survive in a nuclear environment?
They still have to refuel the tank and find food.
They still have to refuel the tank and find food.
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8
TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it.
As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate support. They'll blast anything in their path and charge right through all but the toughest and most concentrated defenses. As long as you can see those really concentrated defenses in advance and go around, they're pretty tough to stop.
As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate support. They'll blast anything in their path and charge right through all but the toughest and most concentrated defenses. As long as you can see those really concentrated defenses in advance and go around, they're pretty tough to stop.
There must have been _some_ intersections of time/technology and/or cost/efficiency where this didn't hold? Where a weapon system became _so_ vulnerable that, despite being the best at its job, it still wasn't good enough.
As an example, is there a point where hypersonic weapons become so effective that aircraft carriers are [temporarily?] retired? Surely the cost (time, money, human lives) that goes into the weapon system is part of the equation.
As an example, is there a point where hypersonic weapons become so effective that aircraft carriers are [temporarily?] retired? Surely the cost (time, money, human lives) that goes into the weapon system is part of the equation.
I suppose it's possible that might happen at some point in the future, but I don't think that's ever happened.
Humans are about the most vulnerable thing out there. Yet nobody suggests that we should get rid of the infantry because they're too vulnerable. Instead, we give them camouflage gear, some armor, train them to stay behind cover and move carefully, and work on better medical care if they get hit.
FWIW, hypersonic weapons are likely overrated. The hard part has always been finding an active deployed carrier and tracking it well enough to guide a weapon into it. If you can do that, there's no shortage of weapons that can sink it. The carrier's tactics are to use its air wing to stay outside of radar range from any targets while still being able to strike, and using airborne radar as needed to monitor the area without revealing the precise position of the actual carrier.
Foreign militaries are just as prone to exaggerations about how effective their weapons are as American military contractors. Results of well-run tank divisions against anti-tank teams, some of which are documented in the GP's video, show that the kill rates against tanks are often underwhelming even in situations where the tanks are at a disadvantage.
Humans are about the most vulnerable thing out there. Yet nobody suggests that we should get rid of the infantry because they're too vulnerable. Instead, we give them camouflage gear, some armor, train them to stay behind cover and move carefully, and work on better medical care if they get hit.
FWIW, hypersonic weapons are likely overrated. The hard part has always been finding an active deployed carrier and tracking it well enough to guide a weapon into it. If you can do that, there's no shortage of weapons that can sink it. The carrier's tactics are to use its air wing to stay outside of radar range from any targets while still being able to strike, and using airborne radar as needed to monitor the area without revealing the precise position of the actual carrier.
Foreign militaries are just as prone to exaggerations about how effective their weapons are as American military contractors. Results of well-run tank divisions against anti-tank teams, some of which are documented in the GP's video, show that the kill rates against tanks are often underwhelming even in situations where the tanks are at a disadvantage.
Hypersonic weapons have a lot of FUD around them. First off, they aren't some new technology. Most ballistic missiles achieve hypersonic speeds, including the V2 rocket from WW2. What's new are hypersonic glide vehicles that follow a ballistic trajectory up and then are capable of moving and maneuvering down to a target. Notably, this method means that the hypersonic glide vehicle is traveling SLOWER than a ballistic missile traveling to the same target, but the trajectory is depressed and the ability to make some maneuvers complicates targeting and tracking. And that isn't even overly new technology, there have been tests of the hypersonic glide vehicle concept dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. An example of a hypersonic glide vehicle that was actually used was the space shuttle. There's also hypersonic cruise missiles, which are able to achieve hypersonic speeds in level flight.
So what does Russia have? Currently, all they have fielded is the Kinzhal missile. But is it neither a hypersonic glide body nor a hypersonic cruise missile. It is simply an air-launched ballistic missile. It would not be suitable for an anti-ship mission, unless striking a ship docked in port. The impressive and novel thing about it is that they managed to get a ballistic missile to be launched from an aircraft, which is rather tricky to do from an engineering standpoint, and IIRC is the first ALBM to actually be deployed. They also have Avangard in development, which is a hypersonic glide body deployed from ICBMs for the nuclear strike mission. Finally, they have the Zircon missile in development, which is a hypersonic cruise missile meant for the anti-ship mission. Russia claims to have completed testing of the missile, but it doesn't appear to have been deployed yet. It's unclear how effective it would be against a carrier strike group, with air defenses, electronic countermeasures and decoys. Notably, it cruises at a high altitude, unlike most anti-ship missiles which try to skim the surface to make it harder to detect and track on radar.
Ultimately, I don't think that hypersonic weapons fundamentally change the security of the carrier. It may necessitate the development of some anti-missile missiles better tuned for the counter-hypersonic mission. It may necessitate altering doctrine towards the anti-ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) mission to complicate targeting such missiles. I could be wrong of course!
So what does Russia have? Currently, all they have fielded is the Kinzhal missile. But is it neither a hypersonic glide body nor a hypersonic cruise missile. It is simply an air-launched ballistic missile. It would not be suitable for an anti-ship mission, unless striking a ship docked in port. The impressive and novel thing about it is that they managed to get a ballistic missile to be launched from an aircraft, which is rather tricky to do from an engineering standpoint, and IIRC is the first ALBM to actually be deployed. They also have Avangard in development, which is a hypersonic glide body deployed from ICBMs for the nuclear strike mission. Finally, they have the Zircon missile in development, which is a hypersonic cruise missile meant for the anti-ship mission. Russia claims to have completed testing of the missile, but it doesn't appear to have been deployed yet. It's unclear how effective it would be against a carrier strike group, with air defenses, electronic countermeasures and decoys. Notably, it cruises at a high altitude, unlike most anti-ship missiles which try to skim the surface to make it harder to detect and track on radar.
Ultimately, I don't think that hypersonic weapons fundamentally change the security of the carrier. It may necessitate the development of some anti-missile missiles better tuned for the counter-hypersonic mission. It may necessitate altering doctrine towards the anti-ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) mission to complicate targeting such missiles. I could be wrong of course!
With Russia fielding hypersonic weapons now, could you imagine if they threaten the US with "Send arms to Ukraine, we sink your aircraft carriers"? In that sense, hypersonic missiles may replace much more costly to maintain and much harder to deploy nuclear weapons.
In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... [2] https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-...
In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... [2] https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-...
Still don't understand the value proposition. Mobile air support is pretty important but supersonic missiles and modern submarines could sink or severely damage an aircraft carrier. Perhaps a sub getting away again would be almost impossible but the damage of the carrier would be much more costly, worst case you also lose all the planes. So I would place them in shallow waters near ports too...
My naive understanding is that carriers are not designed for use in conflicts where your enemies are those who can develop hypersonic missiles. Think about Iraq / Afghanistan; the carriers sitting nearby provided support for the invasion. They could easily stay far enough away that they don't have to worry about their safety because their opposition military was not very sophisticated.
Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).
Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).
> Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it.
What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun.
*as we are seeing in Ukraine.
What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun.
*as we are seeing in Ukraine.
> What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better?
Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?
Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?
I think the claim is that SPG can also fire in direct mode and they have MUCH bigger guns. Imagine an SPG with trophy system bolted on it. Question is, is passive armour beyond stopping bullets and shrapnel worth it?
I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo.
There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?
I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo.
There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?
> Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?
Well they can carry their own Stugna or Javelin. Isn't that an argument for more dismounted infantry, not less?
Well they can carry their own Stugna or Javelin. Isn't that an argument for more dismounted infantry, not less?
I don't think they work on people.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1534472563681812482 [Ukrainian Stugna-P ATGM strike on Russian troops]
Warning: combat footage, people die...
Warning: combat footage, people die...
APS protects against ATGM, not cannon fire.
Well that is the big question, is it worth trying to protect from kinetic penetrator or not.
T-72's are 50 year old tanks. It's like fielding WW1 tanks in the Vietnam war.
A T-72 is both easy to detect and easy to kill for someone with a Javelin, while the Javelin-man is hard to detect and non-trival to kill (at range) with the T-72.
The arms race between protective equiment (armor, shields, etc) and anti-armor weapons has been going on for over a thousand years, arguably longer (like when Roman pila would get stuck in enemy sheilds, making the shields useless, even if the pilum didn't kill the enemy soldier).
In our current age, the previous generation of tanks has been made obsolete by ATGM, just like Cuirassiers were obsolete at the outbreak of WW1 and WW1 tanks were obsolete at the outbreak of WW2.
Modern tanks with state-of-the art sensors and APS are much better protected against ATGM's. While still not the ideal platform for use against anti-tank weapons, at least they don't get slaughtered on first contact. If the enemy has a high concentration of ATGM armed infantry in an area, it's probably better to take them out with infantry, artillery and/or aircraft. Given the cost of ATGM's, this is cost-efficient. And if the ATGM's are spread out, a tank formation with good protection systems can affort to smash through, even if it comes at the cost of a few casualties, to maintain momentum.
A T-72 is both easy to detect and easy to kill for someone with a Javelin, while the Javelin-man is hard to detect and non-trival to kill (at range) with the T-72.
The arms race between protective equiment (armor, shields, etc) and anti-armor weapons has been going on for over a thousand years, arguably longer (like when Roman pila would get stuck in enemy sheilds, making the shields useless, even if the pilum didn't kill the enemy soldier).
In our current age, the previous generation of tanks has been made obsolete by ATGM, just like Cuirassiers were obsolete at the outbreak of WW1 and WW1 tanks were obsolete at the outbreak of WW2.
Modern tanks with state-of-the art sensors and APS are much better protected against ATGM's. While still not the ideal platform for use against anti-tank weapons, at least they don't get slaughtered on first contact. If the enemy has a high concentration of ATGM armed infantry in an area, it's probably better to take them out with infantry, artillery and/or aircraft. Given the cost of ATGM's, this is cost-efficient. And if the ATGM's are spread out, a tank formation with good protection systems can affort to smash through, even if it comes at the cost of a few casualties, to maintain momentum.
Maybe HQ could triangulate the javelin man when he is googling "Javelin makes strange noises" or "Javelin not functioning" on his smartphone. And then give the coordinates to the tank crew to even the odds a little.
Occasionally, weapons make a comeback. Like the turtle ships of Admiral Yi Sun-sin.
Came here to post this, so glad to see you did!
I'll add a complimentary link for others' benefit from Military History Visualized: "Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY
In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result.
I'll add a complimentary link for others' benefit from Military History Visualized: "Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY
In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result.
> In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result.
The modern Combined Arms Warfare is so similar to the medieval "Infantry, Archers, and Cavalry". Infantry is still infantry. Archers are now air support. Cavalry is armour.
History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. Tanks won't be obsoleted by anything currently deployed, but if you manage to squeeze an a antitank munition (like some sort of armour piercing super-RPG) into a weapon an infantryman (every infantryman) carries, that might do it.
The modern Combined Arms Warfare is so similar to the medieval "Infantry, Archers, and Cavalry". Infantry is still infantry. Archers are now air support. Cavalry is armour.
History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. Tanks won't be obsoleted by anything currently deployed, but if you manage to squeeze an a antitank munition (like some sort of armour piercing super-RPG) into a weapon an infantryman (every infantryman) carries, that might do it.
I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.
It's the same thing, if you think of aircraft as missiles. The point is the extension of range. Aircraft can reach out much, much further than a naval gun, and can be used to scout more effectively (many 20th century battleships had aircraft of their own for scouting/fire spotting). Even modern missile-equipped warships are less flexible in some ways than a carrier air wing, though we have yet to see warfare pitting a modern carrier battle group against anti-ship missiles.
And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has.
You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
Surprisingly enough, the AEGIS Anti Ballistic Missile variant is in fact designed to intercept the name on the tin. That a handful of lazy journalists write "carriers are dead" articles with some regularity doesn't mean the actual Pentagon is clueless and asleep at the wheel vs it being a superficial take of a much more complex topic.
A couple years back the Navy asked congress for funding to demonstrate taking down an inbound saturation attack of 500+ missiles, probably as a deterrent to China. Congress declined.
A couple years back the Navy asked congress for funding to demonstrate taking down an inbound saturation attack of 500+ missiles, probably as a deterrent to China. Congress declined.
> Surprisingly enough, the AEGIS Anti Ballistic Missile variant is in fact designed to intercept the name on the tin.
When people say "hypersonic missiles" they mean missiles with a hypersonic glide phase, which have non-ballistic flight paths and can't generally be intercepted by anti-ballistic-missile countermeasures.
When people say "hypersonic missiles" they mean missiles with a hypersonic glide phase, which have non-ballistic flight paths and can't generally be intercepted by anti-ballistic-missile countermeasures.
This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet.
Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.
Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.
> And carriers can ... submerge underwater.
Not sure if you were serious or not, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
Not sure if you were serious or not, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
A carrier costs $10 billion. Without considering the crew and stuff in it. You can fire 50 $100 mil missiles simultaneously at it would still make a lot of sense, especially considering the morale aspect.
Regardless of missile cost, the hard part is getting an accurate targeting track and then data linking that back to a launcher. Satellites, aircraft, and submarines can all potentially accomplish that mission, but they only exist in limited numbers and are in turn vulnerable to the defensive weapons available in a carrier strike force.
You only need general location data. The missile can do the final approach itself.
It's hard to hide a strike group. Even civilians are tracking them these days with commercial sattelites:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/07/the-realiti...
US itself talks about sending out hundreds of cheapish drones in a swarm (5 km spacing) to seek out all naval assets over an area.
It's hard to hide a strike group. Even civilians are tracking them these days with commercial sattelites:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/07/the-realiti...
US itself talks about sending out hundreds of cheapish drones in a swarm (5 km spacing) to seek out all naval assets over an area.
Bullshit. The missiles have only limited sensors and maneuvering capability. Commercial satellites don't provide real-time targeting data. And cheap drones lack the range for this mission. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about
> A carrier costs $10 billion. Without considering the crew and stuff in it. You can fire 50 $100 mil missiles simultaneously at it would still make a lot of sense, especially considering the morale aspect.
It would make sense for equal economies fighting.
It would make sense for equal economies fighting.
Is there actually an independently confirmed useful hypersonic weapon?
Aircraft aren't anything without their missiles.
This sea change happened in WWII though.
Recon is very valuable. Cannons are far more effective if you know where to point them.
This is like asking Michael Saylor if Bitcoin is still a good investment.
Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere?
I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.
I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.
Video games.
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/armored-brigade
Armored Brigade is probably a good start. 4 minutes for artillery to aim, 1 to 2 minutes for shells to actually arrive, 10 minutes for air-support to fly in.
1 to 2 minutes to deliver commands to any particular squad (depending on how good their radio contact is).
Roughly realistic levels of arms, armor and penetration. Angle of shots and type of weapon (kinetic energy, such as APFSDS, or Chemical energy, such as M47 Dragon or HEAT rounds) are factored in.
Guided missiles, top-down missiles, fire-and-forget missiles. Etc. etc. Its not every weapon, but its a solid set of important weapons that probably cover a wide variety of possible combat situations.
Line-of-sight is simulated on an incredible degree: height maps matter, but so do trees (partially obscured), houses, and smoke grenades even. Line of sight is best at 12noon. Line of sight is worst at night, unless your squads are equipped with thermal vision. Weather (foggy conditions especially) can change things dramatically.
-------
The simulated soldiers/tanks aren't the best, but they're smart enough to run away during artillery barrages and hunker down. They'll seek cover on their own (and if you tell them a direction to defend against, they'll look for cover on their own too against that direction). Tank commanders "button up" during enemy fire (reducing their vision but likely saving the commander's life). Covering fire is therefore effective.
------
The AI is okay. The AI runs into traps and ambushes, and never really figures them out. Still, good enough to get you the basics of strategy of each of these weapons.
Seeing the 3000m range of a tank vs the 150m range of a M72 LAW really demonstrates the bravery that those unguided anti-tank bazooka squads have.
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/armored-brigade
Armored Brigade is probably a good start. 4 minutes for artillery to aim, 1 to 2 minutes for shells to actually arrive, 10 minutes for air-support to fly in.
1 to 2 minutes to deliver commands to any particular squad (depending on how good their radio contact is).
Roughly realistic levels of arms, armor and penetration. Angle of shots and type of weapon (kinetic energy, such as APFSDS, or Chemical energy, such as M47 Dragon or HEAT rounds) are factored in.
Guided missiles, top-down missiles, fire-and-forget missiles. Etc. etc. Its not every weapon, but its a solid set of important weapons that probably cover a wide variety of possible combat situations.
Line-of-sight is simulated on an incredible degree: height maps matter, but so do trees (partially obscured), houses, and smoke grenades even. Line of sight is best at 12noon. Line of sight is worst at night, unless your squads are equipped with thermal vision. Weather (foggy conditions especially) can change things dramatically.
-------
The simulated soldiers/tanks aren't the best, but they're smart enough to run away during artillery barrages and hunker down. They'll seek cover on their own (and if you tell them a direction to defend against, they'll look for cover on their own too against that direction). Tank commanders "button up" during enemy fire (reducing their vision but likely saving the commander's life). Covering fire is therefore effective.
------
The AI is okay. The AI runs into traps and ambushes, and never really figures them out. Still, good enough to get you the basics of strategy of each of these weapons.
Seeing the 3000m range of a tank vs the 150m range of a M72 LAW really demonstrates the bravery that those unguided anti-tank bazooka squads have.
An interesting game that addresses a very similar conflict is Combat Mission:Black Seas [1]. This simulates a hypothetical 2011 conflict between Ukraine and Russia. This game was made before the 2014 invasion. Versions of the game are used to train officers in the British Army. A youtuber, Usually Hapless [2] covers a lot of combined arms warfare stuff on his channel using Combat Mission as a base. It's worth looking at.
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1502380/Combat_Mission_Bl...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9egpHJiRis89uHkeyJiEug/vid...
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1502380/Combat_Mission_Bl...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9egpHJiRis89uHkeyJiEug/vid...
There are some very interesting developments in this field:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1523791050313433088
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1523791050313433088
Single place? Probably no. But You can go branch by branch.
For armor, Chieftain is probably as good as it gets in English when it comes to universality (he's both a historian and an active service Lt.Col. in the US NG).
For further armor sources, I'd highly recommend the YT channel of Tank Museum Bovington: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum
The chap whose video Chieftain replies to ("Perun") is worth following in his own right for the modern take on Russian / Ukraine war. He's more of an economist / logistician, but well worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q
From Perun You'll often hear the name "Michael Kofman". He doesn't get one single place where you could find all of his stuff, but google him and go through the articles / videos he is in. He's often used as a source for quite a lot of commentary about Russian Army in the past 20 years or so. https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/
When it comes to general doctrine, it's sometimes useful to know the compositions of forces. This is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder
When it comes to modern navy, Jive Turkey (now called "SubBrief") is probably a cool starting point. Mainly submarines (he's an ex US Navy 688 sonar operator), but : https://www.youtube.com/c/SubBrief
For armor, Chieftain is probably as good as it gets in English when it comes to universality (he's both a historian and an active service Lt.Col. in the US NG).
For further armor sources, I'd highly recommend the YT channel of Tank Museum Bovington: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum
The chap whose video Chieftain replies to ("Perun") is worth following in his own right for the modern take on Russian / Ukraine war. He's more of an economist / logistician, but well worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q
From Perun You'll often hear the name "Michael Kofman". He doesn't get one single place where you could find all of his stuff, but google him and go through the articles / videos he is in. He's often used as a source for quite a lot of commentary about Russian Army in the past 20 years or so. https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/
When it comes to general doctrine, it's sometimes useful to know the compositions of forces. This is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder
When it comes to modern navy, Jive Turkey (now called "SubBrief") is probably a cool starting point. Mainly submarines (he's an ex US Navy 688 sonar operator), but : https://www.youtube.com/c/SubBrief
Upvote for Perun. He very recently did a video on the apparent infantry shortage that the Russian forces seem to be facing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKewF8_SiIs
The short, short, short version is that the Russian BTGs (battalion tactical groups) and undermanned in general, and the conscripts are supposed to be filling most of the infantry slots. Theoretically, because this isn't a declared war, the conscripts aren't supposed to be fighting, and weren't sent to the "special military operation".
I enjoyed watching all the Ukraine war videos on that channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKewF8_SiIs
The short, short, short version is that the Russian BTGs (battalion tactical groups) and undermanned in general, and the conscripts are supposed to be filling most of the infantry slots. Theoretically, because this isn't a declared war, the conscripts aren't supposed to be fighting, and weren't sent to the "special military operation".
I enjoyed watching all the Ukraine war videos on that channel.
Thanks. I'm still kinda new to this upvote thing ;-)
If You like Perun and want to dig a bit deeper, try checking out Kofman's articles / videos. He's used quite often as a source (and with quite some reverence) by Perun and others.
Here's one from 2019 where he basically says what everyone figured out in 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UktY0XePs0
Beware, it's not the best presentation, but his public speaking skills have seriously improved since ;-)
Here's a panel he did with West Point right at the beginning of the invasion, if You'd like to check how his stuff holds up (Col. L. Collins is a good one on his own as well). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEvbVoDiU0&t=2378s&ab_chann...
If You like Perun and want to dig a bit deeper, try checking out Kofman's articles / videos. He's used quite often as a source (and with quite some reverence) by Perun and others.
Here's one from 2019 where he basically says what everyone figured out in 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UktY0XePs0
Beware, it's not the best presentation, but his public speaking skills have seriously improved since ;-)
Here's a panel he did with West Point right at the beginning of the invasion, if You'd like to check how his stuff holds up (Col. L. Collins is a good one on his own as well). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEvbVoDiU0&t=2378s&ab_chann...
The US Army keeps a public repository of all field manuals approved for general release here: https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/FM.aspx
I think the closest to what you're looking for is FM 3-96 the Brigade Combat Team (https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31505-FM_3-9...). The is the smallest unit that includes effectively everything the Army can bring to bear, including infantry, armor, artillery, and rotary aviation. There might still be some fairly specialized intelligence, surveillance, and recon assets only available to divisions, but most of what the Army can deploy for fighting purposes exists in the BCTs at this point. I imagine other branches of service have their equivalents in terms of doctrine on how to employ submarines and fighter jets, but I only ever served in the Army and am most familiar with their tactics and doctrine.
I think the closest to what you're looking for is FM 3-96 the Brigade Combat Team (https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31505-FM_3-9...). The is the smallest unit that includes effectively everything the Army can bring to bear, including infantry, armor, artillery, and rotary aviation. There might still be some fairly specialized intelligence, surveillance, and recon assets only available to divisions, but most of what the Army can deploy for fighting purposes exists in the BCTs at this point. I imagine other branches of service have their equivalents in terms of doctrine on how to employ submarines and fighter jets, but I only ever served in the Army and am most familiar with their tactics and doctrine.
One place for a quick look at different types of armor and their uses, is the recent post at the A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry blog:
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
I used to get a copy of Janes Defense Weekly at work. It was always a good read when I was a young kid on the hill. They even used to put out a buyers guide for IFVs/LAVs. If you want to cut through the noise for good military analysis you usually have to drop some decent dough.
Not a single source, but old.reddit.com/r/warCollege is fantastic. It's not as strict as /r/askHistorians (for better or for worse) but there are lots of active military officers on there who know their stuff
The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles.
Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.
Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.
You can't occupy an objective with a drone or a missile. You can't control a city with a drone.
Infantry and AFVs that support them will never go away. They may change but war isn't just about destruction.
Infantry and AFVs that support them will never go away. They may change but war isn't just about destruction.
[deleted]
Oh yes you can. Just not a flying drone and not just one.
I'm going to avoid the quippy sarcastic response and try my best to be curious:
How would you occupy a city with only drones? What would it look like? Would they issue orders to civilians to stay in their homes? What sort of objectives that humans do now in war [0] do you think drones can fully replace?
[0] establishing forward bases for further logistical support, "securing" areas, including searching through rubble for humans and making sure they're not a threat, etc. I've never been in the military so I don't know from experience but I'm pretty sure there's tons of other examples here.
How would you occupy a city with only drones? What would it look like? Would they issue orders to civilians to stay in their homes? What sort of objectives that humans do now in war [0] do you think drones can fully replace?
[0] establishing forward bases for further logistical support, "securing" areas, including searching through rubble for humans and making sure they're not a threat, etc. I've never been in the military so I don't know from experience but I'm pretty sure there's tons of other examples here.
But your not flying drone is going to look like a tankette, aka the autonomous combat warrior weasel from Rheinmetall.
Maybe.
There are some experiments using turret style drones to maintain like DMZs. They still need a human operator. That is a case where you are mostly just waiting though.
Seizing a town means dealing with a ton of civilians - negotiating, handling mixed reports, etc. Drones may become part of that but cameras are imperfect and you will need people unless Drone tech has a giant leap in human interfacing.
There are some experiments using turret style drones to maintain like DMZs. They still need a human operator. That is a case where you are mostly just waiting though.
Seizing a town means dealing with a ton of civilians - negotiating, handling mixed reports, etc. Drones may become part of that but cameras are imperfect and you will need people unless Drone tech has a giant leap in human interfacing.
> Just not a flying drone and not just one.
Half-life 2 confirmed.
Half-life 2 confirmed.
I'd be fine with stepping in an m1 Abrams equipped with trophy [0] which
"Since 2011, the system has achieved 100% success in all low and high-intensity combat events, in diversified terrain (urban, open and foliage). The system has intercepted a variety of threats, including the 9M133 Kornet ATGM, RPG-29, etc. the U.S Army has reported similar success in tests. “I tried to kill the Abrams tank with ATGM 48 times and failed, despite the fact that some of them were supersonic,” said US Army Col. Glenn Dean."
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
"Since 2011, the system has achieved 100% success in all low and high-intensity combat events, in diversified terrain (urban, open and foliage). The system has intercepted a variety of threats, including the 9M133 Kornet ATGM, RPG-29, etc. the U.S Army has reported similar success in tests. “I tried to kill the Abrams tank with ATGM 48 times and failed, despite the fact that some of them were supersonic,” said US Army Col. Glenn Dean."
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
I think the guy has a point in tanks being useful, but nobody's saying it can't be satelite controlled drone tanks.
Probably not with the current level of technology. Especially given that the lifetime of the tank is not only "drive forward and shoot" - it needs to be fueled, oiled, repaired, restocked, pulled out of the mud, etc. Fully automating this would be a very complex task. Especially achieving it on a battlefield where there are people who are present there, unlike the remote controller, and do their best to try and not let you do any of that.
Indeed. I am sure there are lots of things under development, I have little knowledge in the area but I ran across this video the other day which suggests refueling and rearming via drone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNLCa6isqJA
No idea how far between concept and reality that is and obviously this is a whole different class of vehicle than a tank.
No idea how far between concept and reality that is and obviously this is a whole different class of vehicle than a tank.
[deleted]
I think that's a potentially useful idea. At this point, putting people in tanks is irresponsible. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be used as remotely-operated vehicles.
If it doesn't have to carry people, it can carry much less armor, which makes it more maneuverable; it might carry so much less mass that it doesn't need tracks to handle rough terrain. If it's light and nimble enough it doesn't need a turret to point the main weapon.
Is a remote-controlled dune buggy with a low-recoil rifle a tank?
Is a remote-controlled dune buggy with a low-recoil rifle a tank?
You still need to protect the ammunition, otherwise a nearby explosion will set it off (this also happens at the moment but less so than I would expect it to happen with less armor, which also would make penetrating the wall much easier and which would make the tank a softer target altogether).
Sure, but you might not care as much because:
- you can airlift 25 2-ton dune-buggies instead of 1 50-ton tank
- you can buy 25 $2 million dune-buggies for the cost of 2 $25 million tanks
- if you sent 2 tanks, losing one is half of your force projection. If you sent 25 dune-buggies, losing one is 4% of your force.
- maintenance on an unmanned 2-ton dune-buggy has to be easier, faster and cheaper than maintenance on a tank. Tanks need dedicated recovery vehicles (or Ukrainian tractors) that cost nearly as much as another tank. Maintenance is going to be much, much easier without armor and the concomitant suspension for the armor getting in the way.
A hybrid powerplant is probably best -- a diesel motor-generator to charge batteries and run for distance, with an electric motor system and nice quiet relatively cool batteries for an hour or two of sneaking around at a time. Tanks don't sneak up on you, but a hybrid dune-buggy in battery mode can.
This also has knock-on effects for the civilian economy, because if the cool support weapon for the infantry is a quiet hybrid dune-buggy, the same thing with a crew cabin instead of a gun and ammo will be a smash hit.
- you can airlift 25 2-ton dune-buggies instead of 1 50-ton tank
- you can buy 25 $2 million dune-buggies for the cost of 2 $25 million tanks
- if you sent 2 tanks, losing one is half of your force projection. If you sent 25 dune-buggies, losing one is 4% of your force.
- maintenance on an unmanned 2-ton dune-buggy has to be easier, faster and cheaper than maintenance on a tank. Tanks need dedicated recovery vehicles (or Ukrainian tractors) that cost nearly as much as another tank. Maintenance is going to be much, much easier without armor and the concomitant suspension for the armor getting in the way.
A hybrid powerplant is probably best -- a diesel motor-generator to charge batteries and run for distance, with an electric motor system and nice quiet relatively cool batteries for an hour or two of sneaking around at a time. Tanks don't sneak up on you, but a hybrid dune-buggy in battery mode can.
This also has knock-on effects for the civilian economy, because if the cool support weapon for the infantry is a quiet hybrid dune-buggy, the same thing with a crew cabin instead of a gun and ammo will be a smash hit.
The tank can carry a bigger gun, but that's about it. Most of it is armor that it has to haul for 100-300 miles at a time (before it runs out of fuel).
Also, lol at "Ukrainian tractors". Their biggest (only?) tractor plant was destroyed in Kharkiv. Most of their tractors are... John Deere. Probably why they got so good at modifying them that Americans are buying their software :D
Also, lol at "Ukrainian tractors". Their biggest (only?) tractor plant was destroyed in Kharkiv. Most of their tractors are... John Deere. Probably why they got so good at modifying them that Americans are buying their software :D
[deleted]
> If it doesn't have to carry people, it can carry much less armor, which makes it more maneuverable
But it will be vulnerable to smaller weapons on smaller cheaper vehicles.
But it will be vulnerable to smaller weapons on smaller cheaper vehicles.
But we already know that tanks are vulnerable to relatively cheap small vehicles, so this is not a comparative disadvantage.
Also consider that tanks are dispatched in small groups; they need to be able to defend themselves. But a swarm of buggies could have weapons optimized to defend each other -- a shotgun is pretty effective against small suicide drones, and nothing defends against a laser-guided bomb anyway.
Also consider that tanks are dispatched in small groups; they need to be able to defend themselves. But a swarm of buggies could have weapons optimized to defend each other -- a shotgun is pretty effective against small suicide drones, and nothing defends against a laser-guided bomb anyway.
How could you figure? How would they be controlled while under communication jamming? Until autonomous AI exists we'll need people on the ground.
The same way that airplane drones are controlled, from a satelite in orbit directly above. To jam that you'd need to get yourself above the tank, which to be fair is probably doable to some extent, so there would have to be countermeasures for it. But it's not exactly impossible.
Drones fly pretty high and usually avoid contact with the enemy, and if there's trouble, they can easily flee and come back later. For on-the-ground vehicle, one need to stay much closer to the enemy, and if something goes wrong, the opportunities for fleeing are much harder to come by. You certainly don't need to physically be on top of the tank to jam - there are military systems that can disrupt communications in a wide area. And, probably, just dumping something non-transparent on whatever it uses to acquire visual information would work too. There would be nobody to come out and clean it up - a trivial task for a human, much harder for the robotic drone. Humans are very flexible, robots aren't, at least not until we get some AI going. And tbh, if we have such an AI, I'm not sure we really want to give it a tank to drive around.
Or you launch an anti-satellite missile.
Which is the reason why great-powers don't go to war with each other these days. Forget nukes, the first thing that will be destroyed is each other's satellite communication systems. That alone would devastate the world's economy.
Anti-satellite warfare is a huge reason why the Space Force (stupid name) came into existence.
Which is the reason why great-powers don't go to war with each other these days. Forget nukes, the first thing that will be destroyed is each other's satellite communication systems. That alone would devastate the world's economy.
Anti-satellite warfare is a huge reason why the Space Force (stupid name) came into existence.
That's a problem, but it's one that exists already, in that a tank crew with a broken or jammed radio is pretty much useless.
If you want to occupy territory, you've got to do that on the ground.
If Clausewitz is to be believed, killing the enemy army is priority 1, and territory only matters in pursuit of that goal.
Makes sense - if all combatants in the Russian army are dead, there’s no further need to defend territory for Ukraine. A boom with a border guard stamping passports would suffice.
Makes sense - if all combatants in the Russian army are dead, there’s no further need to defend territory for Ukraine. A boom with a border guard stamping passports would suffice.
"War is a continuation of policy by other means."
Political goals are always the first priority. Fighting may be exciting, but it may also be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Defeating the enemy is neither necessary nor sufficient for winning the war.
Political goals are always the first priority. Fighting may be exciting, but it may also be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Defeating the enemy is neither necessary nor sufficient for winning the war.
Right, but what if you want to chase the Russians out of Ukraine without killing the Russian army to the last man?
When it gets to that point, the russian army without supply lines will have no other means to stay engaged.
Thus the priority from the very beginning was to disrupt the supply lines and ability to generate resources, meanwhile securing own supply and resources.
Ukraine needs more supply of long range artillery and lot more ammo for it ... yesterday and right now!
Thus the priority from the very beginning was to disrupt the supply lines and ability to generate resources, meanwhile securing own supply and resources.
Ukraine needs more supply of long range artillery and lot more ammo for it ... yesterday and right now!
A temporary solution at best. You chase them out and they’ll eventually come at you again, until they are dead or disbanded.
Tanks and soldiers are used to occupy territory, but in the face of a well-equipped enemy and/or a motivated populace, they can't hold it.
Not everybody likes wars of attrition. Russia is an outlier in that regard. Copying their doctrine and tactics is a bad idea, as is citing them as a successful example of how to accomplish anything. They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance... and no amount of tanks and soldiers will change that.
Not everybody likes wars of attrition. Russia is an outlier in that regard. Copying their doctrine and tactics is a bad idea, as is citing them as a successful example of how to accomplish anything. They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance... and no amount of tanks and soldiers will change that.
>... They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance...
...modern armed force and which is willing and allowed to fight. It's an increasingly important factor of modern day engagements.
Let's not forget the political aspects of the battlefield, as we are continuing to witness.
...modern armed force and which is willing and allowed to fight. It's an increasingly important factor of modern day engagements.
Let's not forget the political aspects of the battlefield, as we are continuing to witness.
>, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance.
They seem to be doing quite well against the modern army of Ukraine, NATO-trained for 7-8 years now.
They seem to be doing quite well against the modern army of Ukraine, NATO-trained for 7-8 years now.
The line of engagement barely moved in 3 months all the while Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned, Russians are doing quite well indeed /s. In reality UAF wasn't even a really modern army, just more modern than Russia, and all their "NATO" training in effect started in 2014.
Where do people get the impression that Russian army is strong and capable is beyond me, they just throw people into the meat grinder and sit on top of the infinite Soviet arsenal of old equipment.
Where do people get the impression that Russian army is strong and capable is beyond me, they just throw people into the meat grinder and sit on top of the infinite Soviet arsenal of old equipment.
A properly-sized invasion force given the physical size of Ukraine, and the size of its army, should have been 400,000-600,000 strong. Russia went in with <200,000, with its force structure badly allocated (not enough infantrymen or logistics guys), and has still managed to occupy a land area larger than Portugal + Ireland combined. And they've done that with essentially their peacetime standing forces. From the perspective of how the Russian army is "supposed" to fight (with a massive mobilization to flesh out its units), this invasion is essentially with one hand tied behind its back by improper force design/employment, and the other tied by rampant corruption. Still, Russia is beating Ukraine to death with headbutts...and also suffering a TBI in the process.
"Quantity has a quality all its own". They aren't considered "strong" because individual Russian battalions are expert warfighters per se. They're considered "strong" because the Russian military-industrial complex in its totality is not something that can be idly ignored by anyone except maybe the US or China.
Basically Russia scores high on 3 particular Principles of War: Mass, Offensive, and Simplicity. Not so well on the other 6 though.
https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2B2269...
"Quantity has a quality all its own". They aren't considered "strong" because individual Russian battalions are expert warfighters per se. They're considered "strong" because the Russian military-industrial complex in its totality is not something that can be idly ignored by anyone except maybe the US or China.
Basically Russia scores high on 3 particular Principles of War: Mass, Offensive, and Simplicity. Not so well on the other 6 though.
https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2B2269...
The impression I'm under is that the Ukraine forces have the will and the training to succeed, and maybe the manpower and intel, but not the weapons. And for some reason, we (meaning the rest of the civilized world) are dragging our feet on giving/lending them better hardware.
Frustrating to watch.
Frustrating to watch.
We airlifted M777 howitzers to them in the blink of an eye, by the standards of government/military bureaucracy. Meanwhile out here in the First Island Chain we've been begging for reinforcements/gear/funding for the inevitable fight with China and THAT shit is definitely being slow-walked in comparison.
There are also larger issues to consider beyond just "we want the help the Ukrainians". The best stuff we can send has a bunch of sensitive NATO/US technical information (radio comms, etc.). Do we want to risk that gear falling into Russian hands (and by extension probably getting shared with China)? If the answer is "no", we either have to send alternatives or send the equipment to depot maintenance areas to have the sensitive tech removed. That takes time.
Do we want to risk escalating the war outside of Ukraine, if the Russians respond kinetically to armaments shipments? The answer is again an emphatic "no" from almost every nation except maybe Poland.
Hence the popular snarky refrain: "NATO will fight Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood". Western governments and people will "stand with Ukraine" as long as it doesn't involve them really risking anything (such as themselves being on the receiving end of Russian missiles or artillery).
There are also larger issues to consider beyond just "we want the help the Ukrainians". The best stuff we can send has a bunch of sensitive NATO/US technical information (radio comms, etc.). Do we want to risk that gear falling into Russian hands (and by extension probably getting shared with China)? If the answer is "no", we either have to send alternatives or send the equipment to depot maintenance areas to have the sensitive tech removed. That takes time.
Do we want to risk escalating the war outside of Ukraine, if the Russians respond kinetically to armaments shipments? The answer is again an emphatic "no" from almost every nation except maybe Poland.
Hence the popular snarky refrain: "NATO will fight Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood". Western governments and people will "stand with Ukraine" as long as it doesn't involve them really risking anything (such as themselves being on the receiving end of Russian missiles or artillery).
> Do we want to risk that gear falling into Russian hands (and by extension probably getting shared with China)?
More concerning (imo) is gear, particularly man portable anti-air weapons, sold to terrorist groups either via corruption in the Ukrainian forces, or a Russian op to supply NATO arms to such groups.
More concerning (imo) is gear, particularly man portable anti-air weapons, sold to terrorist groups either via corruption in the Ukrainian forces, or a Russian op to supply NATO arms to such groups.
No idea if your impression is true or not. But if I was in charge of Ukrainian propaganda, I can’t think of a better story to tell allied nations so they’d donate lots of weapons
A simple reading of 1930s world history is all the "story" we should need. When a Hitler or a Putin tells you what they intend to do, believe them.
I'm not sure willingness matters as much in the military as you seem to think.
We'll see. We have an all-volunteer military here in the US, and that won't change, at this point. The idea, as always, is to get more done with fewer people.
It'll change very fast once US gets into a major war. Say, with China.
That war (god forbid) might only take a couple of hours
Unless it's a land war we're more than able to defeat China with what we've got now and their future looks very dim due to the demographic bomb they've created so that's unlikely to change.
I'm not too sure it would be motivating to people either. Usually what motivates people is the fear of being overrun by some other group but with immigration the way it is that's happening anyway.
I'm not too sure it would be motivating to people either. Usually what motivates people is the fear of being overrun by some other group but with immigration the way it is that's happening anyway.
Never say never, but you really don't want that to happen.
I didn't say anything about wanting it to happen. But if it happens, does anyone seriously believe that US could avoid re-instituting the draft?
There are a lot of voices that seem to believe that isolationism is the way to go and that this will protect their 'lifestyle' from being impacted by the war in Ukraine. It's interesting how apparently some of history's lessons are impossible to learn, the exact same thing happened in 1938 and the end result was a much bigger war.
Also, the degree to which the world economies are now interconnected make it next to impossible to believe that a major war in Europe would not impact other parts of the world, which is super naive. Time will tell but I fear that we're in for a very rough ride if this current war doesn't get stopped in its tracks before it can engulf more territories, which ultimately will happen.
The only good thing is that now that the Russians have shown their true goals that the bulk of the 'NATA did this' or 'The Ukrainians only have themselves to blame' people have something to chew on.
Also, the degree to which the world economies are now interconnected make it next to impossible to believe that a major war in Europe would not impact other parts of the world, which is super naive. Time will tell but I fear that we're in for a very rough ride if this current war doesn't get stopped in its tracks before it can engulf more territories, which ultimately will happen.
The only good thing is that now that the Russians have shown their true goals that the bulk of the 'NATA did this' or 'The Ukrainians only have themselves to blame' people have something to chew on.
I'm not a fan of our (US + NATO) current Ukraine policy, but that isn't because I'm an isolationist. I think it's just dumb policy, on several different dimensions. The version of the criticism you're leveling right now can be inverted very easily. That the people arguing for escalation in Ukraine, that it's "the exact same thing [that] happened in 1938" (it isn't), and that unless we do things like a NFZ it leads to a larger war, have a cartoon version in their heads of war and geopolitical strategy. Where there's clear boundaries between the "good guys" and "bad guys", like this is some Marvel film where you don't really even need to watch it to know what happens (spoiler alert: the good guys win!). Perhaps they are the ones who have something, and some history, to chew on.
It's never the "same exact thing", but parallels are obvious and numerous. What more, Russia is already openly talking about some of the things they want to "reintegrate", and if you are familiar with the finer details of Russian internal politics, you can easily name a few more that aren't necessarily floated often (such as North Kazakhstan, which is "South Siberia" in irredentists' parlance).
So yes, even if you do give up on Ukraine, it won't stop there. In that, again, this is very much like 1938.
BTW, I should probably add at this point that I'm ethnically Russian as well as Russian citizen, although I've been living mostly out of the country for the past decade. But I still remember very well what our nationalists are, I'm familiar with the kind of political musings Putin gets his inspiration from, and my firm belief is that this is going to be a much bigger war than most everybody in the West currently anticipates.
So yes, even if you do give up on Ukraine, it won't stop there. In that, again, this is very much like 1938.
BTW, I should probably add at this point that I'm ethnically Russian as well as Russian citizen, although I've been living mostly out of the country for the past decade. But I still remember very well what our nationalists are, I'm familiar with the kind of political musings Putin gets his inspiration from, and my firm belief is that this is going to be a much bigger war than most everybody in the West currently anticipates.
I appreciate the perspective. It does conflict a bit with that of Russian friends I have here in the US, but that's probably to be expected (no one familiar with this should assume that Russians have a uniform distribution of views on politics). I'd tell you that I've walked patrols in some of the same mountains that Soviet soldiers did in Afghanistan, and have read some (but obviously not all, who can) of the material from folks that Putin takes his influence from. What I'd also tell you is that starting WWIII over Kazakhstan is not going to go over well in the United States. I don't think you were implying that, but I frankly consider that issue Russia's business and not mine, and not that of the United States.
>In that, again, this is very much like 1938.
I'm looking for some actual evidence that the global geopolitical situation is comparable to 1938. Merely pointing out that a country in Europe has been invaded is not sufficient.
At this point, I think I should probably note that I consider Putin's invasion of Ukraine to be an enormous blunder. The humanitarian cost is already well documented, but from a strategic perspective, which is the theme of this thread, he's going to deplete his forces to such a degree that any follow-on invasion of other countries is going to be even more of a disaster. I don't know why or how he was convinced this was a good idea. He was always going to pay a significant cost, even if he, eventually, gets a land bridge to Crimea.
>In that, again, this is very much like 1938.
I'm looking for some actual evidence that the global geopolitical situation is comparable to 1938. Merely pointing out that a country in Europe has been invaded is not sufficient.
At this point, I think I should probably note that I consider Putin's invasion of Ukraine to be an enormous blunder. The humanitarian cost is already well documented, but from a strategic perspective, which is the theme of this thread, he's going to deplete his forces to such a degree that any follow-on invasion of other countries is going to be even more of a disaster. I don't know why or how he was convinced this was a good idea. He was always going to pay a significant cost, even if he, eventually, gets a land bridge to Crimea.
Putin did not expect it to be a fight at all. The most damning evidence of this is that those columns that were blitzing towards Kyiv early in the war had Rosgvardia units in them, the whole purpose of which is to suppress street protests etc - and they even packed their riot gear! This is the kind of thing you do if you expect the city to fall right away, and your sole problem then is simmering dissent.
Comparison to Germany in 1930s is fairly straightforward. Both Germany and Russia believed that they have suffered considerable humiliation in the last major conflict (cold war for Russia), lost "their" lands in the process, and were plunged into an economic black hole. In both, this triggered an embrace of irredentism and the overall ideology that can be summed up as "we'll be back, and then you'll be sorry". Both produced increasingly authoritarian regimes that, as they solidified their rule, started to look more and more at "their" lands among their neighbors. Both accused one of their neighbors of persecution of "their" ethnic minority, and justified the invasion and occupation of said neighbor on those grounds.
As for WW3 - no, I don't think it'll start over Kazakhstan. But if you wait long enough, it might start over, say, Latvia. The problem is that, with every country that the collective West allows Russia to overrun, NATO Article 5 is perceived as less of a real deal and more of a bluff. Basically, if US is unwilling to fight for Ukraine for the fear of escalating into nuclear, why would it fight for e.g. Latvia when the likelihood of that escalation would be even higher? Because Latvia is a NATO member? American isolationists will say that NATO isn't worth getting nuked over anymore so than Ukraine. So if you "draw the red line" there, you might find that line rather faded by the time Russia comes close to crossing it. They might cross it simply because they don't believe you have the guts to do anything about it by then.
Adding to the problem is the overly rosy picture of Ukraine successes in this war so far. Don't get me wrong - they are doing very well, exceeding all expectations by a large margin, and have plenty to show for it. But, at the end of the day, this is still a country of 50 million people with a $6 billion defense budget (2021) fighting against a country of 150 million with a $66 billion defense budget. Ukraine has had several mobilization waves since the beginning of the war, while Russia is still relying mostly on contractors and PMC. Ukrainian industry - which is largely in the east - is already devastated, while Russian manufacturing capacity is still fully intact, limited only by sanctions. If Russia were to truly switch to war footing to the same degree that Ukraine already did, Ukrainians won't be able to hold the line - not because they're bad at it, but because Russia can afford to overwhelm them with bodies and munitions. So you can't just assume that if we sit and wait long enough, the Russian advance will stall indefinitely, and that'll solve the problem long-term because all forces will remain tied in Ukraine.
Comparison to Germany in 1930s is fairly straightforward. Both Germany and Russia believed that they have suffered considerable humiliation in the last major conflict (cold war for Russia), lost "their" lands in the process, and were plunged into an economic black hole. In both, this triggered an embrace of irredentism and the overall ideology that can be summed up as "we'll be back, and then you'll be sorry". Both produced increasingly authoritarian regimes that, as they solidified their rule, started to look more and more at "their" lands among their neighbors. Both accused one of their neighbors of persecution of "their" ethnic minority, and justified the invasion and occupation of said neighbor on those grounds.
As for WW3 - no, I don't think it'll start over Kazakhstan. But if you wait long enough, it might start over, say, Latvia. The problem is that, with every country that the collective West allows Russia to overrun, NATO Article 5 is perceived as less of a real deal and more of a bluff. Basically, if US is unwilling to fight for Ukraine for the fear of escalating into nuclear, why would it fight for e.g. Latvia when the likelihood of that escalation would be even higher? Because Latvia is a NATO member? American isolationists will say that NATO isn't worth getting nuked over anymore so than Ukraine. So if you "draw the red line" there, you might find that line rather faded by the time Russia comes close to crossing it. They might cross it simply because they don't believe you have the guts to do anything about it by then.
Adding to the problem is the overly rosy picture of Ukraine successes in this war so far. Don't get me wrong - they are doing very well, exceeding all expectations by a large margin, and have plenty to show for it. But, at the end of the day, this is still a country of 50 million people with a $6 billion defense budget (2021) fighting against a country of 150 million with a $66 billion defense budget. Ukraine has had several mobilization waves since the beginning of the war, while Russia is still relying mostly on contractors and PMC. Ukrainian industry - which is largely in the east - is already devastated, while Russian manufacturing capacity is still fully intact, limited only by sanctions. If Russia were to truly switch to war footing to the same degree that Ukraine already did, Ukrainians won't be able to hold the line - not because they're bad at it, but because Russia can afford to overwhelm them with bodies and munitions. So you can't just assume that if we sit and wait long enough, the Russian advance will stall indefinitely, and that'll solve the problem long-term because all forces will remain tied in Ukraine.
You either accept a moral responsibility to protect sovereign nations from elimination, and elimination at this point was stated by Russian officials and media as a goal numerous times, or you accept the Russian position of "lands and peoples belong to the strong men" and we're back to the age of conquest, but now with nukes. Not only the former position is morally right, but it also prevents or at least postpones the nuclear proliferation.
This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe, and literally about post WW2 order that you seem to be enjoying the fruits of, if only by hanging out on Hacker News.
This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe, and literally about post WW2 order that you seem to be enjoying the fruits of, if only by hanging out on Hacker News.
>>>You either accept a moral responsibility to protect sovereign nations from elimination
And yet we've been arming the Saudis while they starve and bomb the Yemenis into oblivion for the past 10 years.
>>>This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Wars-are-only-evil-when-West...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
I find the degree to which HN has taken umbrage with this particular war.....unsurprising, yet extremely telling.
And yet we've been arming the Saudis while they starve and bomb the Yemenis into oblivion for the past 10 years.
>>>This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Wars-are-only-evil-when-West...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
I find the degree to which HN has taken umbrage with this particular war.....unsurprising, yet extremely telling.
So don’t do that either. I agree there is rampant hypocrisy and that should stop too. That is not an argument against supporting Ukraine.
I don't recall the United States and Ukraine signing a mutual defense pact, or a treaty that designates the United States as the guarantor of Ukrainian independence. The former position you are advocating for literally amounts to "the United States is the Global Empire, and all changes in state arrangements must be approved by Her". That's fine, but just make that your argument. Trying to morally guilt trip people is pointless because there's at least a dozen other conflicts around the world right now where you can make the same argument, about some country's sovereignty being violated.
>This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe, and literally about post WW2 order that you seem to be enjoying the fruits of, if only by hanging out on Hacker News.
I'm not sure what purpose you think this sentence serves. If your argument is, again, the United States is the Global Imperial Power and, because I post on HN, I am balking in my responsibility to sufficiently support this Empire, then got it. I'll make sure to "do better".
>This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe, and literally about post WW2 order that you seem to be enjoying the fruits of, if only by hanging out on Hacker News.
I'm not sure what purpose you think this sentence serves. If your argument is, again, the United States is the Global Imperial Power and, because I post on HN, I am balking in my responsibility to sufficiently support this Empire, then got it. I'll make sure to "do better".
> a treaty that designates the United States as the guarantor of Ukrainian independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
> there's at least a dozen other conflicts around the world right now where you can make the same argument
Which other conflict is waged with the goal of eliminating the country completely and destroy its culture?
There were no major conflicts of this kind since WW2. Changing the government, plenty of times, but not erasing borders with the cultural genocide and some forced children "relocation" on top of that.
I didn't say anything about the US as a global empire or whatever, it's the collective World's responsibility to maintain peace and it's failing. But I say that there are clear "good guys" and "bad guys" here, regardless of the history of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
> there's at least a dozen other conflicts around the world right now where you can make the same argument
Which other conflict is waged with the goal of eliminating the country completely and destroy its culture?
There were no major conflicts of this kind since WW2. Changing the government, plenty of times, but not erasing borders with the cultural genocide and some forced children "relocation" on top of that.
I didn't say anything about the US as a global empire or whatever, it's the collective World's responsibility to maintain peace and it's failing. But I say that there are clear "good guys" and "bad guys" here, regardless of the history of the US.
> But if it happens, does anyone seriously believe that US could avoid re-instituting the draft?
The US no longer has a draft law because the US determined that the draft was bad both from a military manpower perspective and from a domestic politics perspective as to maintaining national will to continue a conflict.
The US will not reauthorize a draft for an overseas war while the US remains a major power. If the US collapses from major power status and the entire political and military calculus is scrambled, it might.
The US no longer has a draft law because the US determined that the draft was bad both from a military manpower perspective and from a domestic politics perspective as to maintaining national will to continue a conflict.
The US will not reauthorize a draft for an overseas war while the US remains a major power. If the US collapses from major power status and the entire political and military calculus is scrambled, it might.
>The US no longer has a draft law because the US determined that the draft was bad both from a military manpower perspective and from a domestic politics perspective as to maintaining national will to continue a conflict.
Nixon got rid of the draft for reasons that had to do with the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and his presidential election. The argument was that the AVF wouldn't negatively impact force readiness, not that the draft was "bad" from a military manpower perspective (I'm not sure what that means). There's some other reasons peppered in correspondence from that time, but I'm super skeptical of this argument for enough reasons to finish a PhD thesis. It's been a long time coming, but the conversation needs to be had about how even if the United States needed to institute a draft we may not actually be able to do so anymore because of the general decline in health and fitness of men in this country. More over, there are civ-mil relations considerations that aren't properly accounted for when you claim the AVF is superior - we have essentially a warrior caste now, that's in many ways sectioned off from the reset of the civilian population. Good? Bad? Exercise for the reader but you can probably guess my stance.
>The US will not reauthorize a draft for an overseas war while the US remains a major power.
I don't see how these are related. Plenty of non "major" powers have conscription (in some form or another), as do plenty of "major" powers. The US wasn't a "major" power before WWI, though it was certainly "a power", and yet my great grandfather was drafted. Maybe you mean the US won't get into an unwinnable and unpopular ground war in South East Asia and then re-institute the draft, but you may be underestimating the depth of ineptitude of the people who've been running the show the last 30ish years. Everyone I served with was a volunteer, obviously, but war necessitates a lot of things that people would otherwise consider impossible right up until they happen.
Nixon got rid of the draft for reasons that had to do with the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and his presidential election. The argument was that the AVF wouldn't negatively impact force readiness, not that the draft was "bad" from a military manpower perspective (I'm not sure what that means). There's some other reasons peppered in correspondence from that time, but I'm super skeptical of this argument for enough reasons to finish a PhD thesis. It's been a long time coming, but the conversation needs to be had about how even if the United States needed to institute a draft we may not actually be able to do so anymore because of the general decline in health and fitness of men in this country. More over, there are civ-mil relations considerations that aren't properly accounted for when you claim the AVF is superior - we have essentially a warrior caste now, that's in many ways sectioned off from the reset of the civilian population. Good? Bad? Exercise for the reader but you can probably guess my stance.
>The US will not reauthorize a draft for an overseas war while the US remains a major power.
I don't see how these are related. Plenty of non "major" powers have conscription (in some form or another), as do plenty of "major" powers. The US wasn't a "major" power before WWI, though it was certainly "a power", and yet my great grandfather was drafted. Maybe you mean the US won't get into an unwinnable and unpopular ground war in South East Asia and then re-institute the draft, but you may be underestimating the depth of ineptitude of the people who've been running the show the last 30ish years. Everyone I served with was a volunteer, obviously, but war necessitates a lot of things that people would otherwise consider impossible right up until they happen.
> The argument was that the AVF wouldn't negatively impact force readiness, not that the draft was "bad" from a military manpower perspective
The argument for the AVF has evolved over time; the issue wasn't once and done, and the importance of longer service terms in a wide range of specialties has been increasingly cited in arguments for maintaining the AVF. But even in the original Gates Commission report, the AVF was not, contrary to your description, painted as merely non-harmful, but as a more efficient means of meeting military requirements, with extensive supporting analysis.
The argument for the AVF has evolved over time; the issue wasn't once and done, and the importance of longer service terms in a wide range of specialties has been increasingly cited in arguments for maintaining the AVF. But even in the original Gates Commission report, the AVF was not, contrary to your description, painted as merely non-harmful, but as a more efficient means of meeting military requirements, with extensive supporting analysis.
That's a really charitable description. There was enormous political pressure in 1968 to find a way to end the draft since Nixon promised in the campaign that he would do it. When you tell people to go find ways to do it, especially when you're the President, they're going to find ways. The entire premise of the AVF at the time was that it would work fine, if you could still do a draft if you needed to.
The Commission's charter wasn't "figure out how to never do a draft again". It was "figure out how to turn this draft that everyone hates off".
edit: bad grammar
The Commission's charter wasn't "figure out how to never do a draft again". It was "figure out how to turn this draft that everyone hates off".
edit: bad grammar
> That's a really charitable description.
No, it's just accurate to what's in the report.
> The entire premise of the AVF at the time was that it would work fine, if you could still do a draft if you needed to.
No, it wasn't. While the standby draft was in the report as a safeguard to slightly reduce the the from-0 spinup time of a draft, the argument presented is not “an AVF is non-harmful as long as backstopped by a standby draft”, but “the AVF is superior on both practical economic efficiency grounds and ethical respect for personal liberty grounds in essentially every conceivable situation (with extensive analysis of the former and philosophical argument for the latter), and, just in case, we can also set up a standby draft system so things aren't quite needing to be built from scratch if Congress and the President ever decide a draft is needed for some reason again.”
In fact, the section of the Gates Commission report on the Standby Draft makes, obliquely, very good argument against the standby draft ever being the right choice, pointing out that it cannot immediately produce forces in an emergency because of time to train and organize, so it is only useful for gradual expansion, but then arguing for voluntary recruitment measures like compensation boosts for gradual expansion to be used in preference to activating the standby draft.
No, it's just accurate to what's in the report.
> The entire premise of the AVF at the time was that it would work fine, if you could still do a draft if you needed to.
No, it wasn't. While the standby draft was in the report as a safeguard to slightly reduce the the from-0 spinup time of a draft, the argument presented is not “an AVF is non-harmful as long as backstopped by a standby draft”, but “the AVF is superior on both practical economic efficiency grounds and ethical respect for personal liberty grounds in essentially every conceivable situation (with extensive analysis of the former and philosophical argument for the latter), and, just in case, we can also set up a standby draft system so things aren't quite needing to be built from scratch if Congress and the President ever decide a draft is needed for some reason again.”
In fact, the section of the Gates Commission report on the Standby Draft makes, obliquely, very good argument against the standby draft ever being the right choice, pointing out that it cannot immediately produce forces in an emergency because of time to train and organize, so it is only useful for gradual expansion, but then arguing for voluntary recruitment measures like compensation boosts for gradual expansion to be used in preference to activating the standby draft.
[deleted]
I think it's pretty unlikely that a war between nuclear powers would last long enough for a draft to become relevant. And if it somehow did, I'm not at all convinced that the US public would opt for sustained war over giving them whatever it is they want.
A draft takes a long time to ramp up, and soldiers take a lot of time to train, so we're unlikely to start up a draft unless we expect a conflict to be protracted. The United States is unlikely to invade China and vice versa. A war pitting the US against China is likely to be largely naval- and air-oriented, with ground action (if any) concentrated on Taiwan, and will probably take at most a few weeks or months.
We mustn't forget Vizzini's Aphorism: Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
We mustn't forget Vizzini's Aphorism: Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
If only all the wars that were deemed "unlikely" before they began never happened, we'd all be much better off.
The problem is that once shots are fired, things can escalate very quickly, and decision-making is often not rational.
The problem is that once shots are fired, things can escalate very quickly, and decision-making is often not rational.
A full out war between nuclear powers would be over way faster than a draft could be implemented.
Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.
There will never be peace. If there are resources held without power, someone will take them.
The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war.
What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another.
Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport.
Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI.
It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain.
Our comfort comes at great cost.
The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war.
What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another.
Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport.
Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI.
It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain.
Our comfort comes at great cost.
What do you propose instead?
A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.
A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.
What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case.
The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be far less prominent than people realize. The argument is that the tank has a task on the battlefield, but we should ask ourselves how much that battlefield matters in this day and age.
The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be far less prominent than people realize. The argument is that the tank has a task on the battlefield, but we should ask ourselves how much that battlefield matters in this day and age.
Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.
So do what Russia does.
Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine.
Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat.
---------
USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that.
When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe).
Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people.
----------
Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes.
They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen.
Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.
Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine.
Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat.
---------
USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that.
When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe).
Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people.
----------
Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes.
They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen.
Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.
Well, financially (and logistically) the Russians are fighting a losing war of morale and economics. Every day the Ukrainians effectively resist the Russians is a victory for Ukraine and the West.
The West will HAPPILY fund the Ukrainians to proxy destroy the Russian military, and proxy bankrupt them.
We'll see how long Putin lives with cancer. The speed of deployment and assumed schedule for victory would point to very fast cancer.
The West will HAPPILY fund the Ukrainians to proxy destroy the Russian military, and proxy bankrupt them.
We'll see how long Putin lives with cancer. The speed of deployment and assumed schedule for victory would point to very fast cancer.
Transporting wins in the short term. Extermination wins too. The europeans exterminated the natives on many lands and took over. They have many lands for centuries now.
Not many Ohlone on hacker news.
The US tried exterminating the Taliban, but failed.
Not many Ohlone on hacker news.
The US tried exterminating the Taliban, but failed.
What do you think the Ukrainians should do?
survive.
So you think they should let the Russians win: https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_pa...
> Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes.
What is that based on? What good outcomes has Russia had from a war, in centuries?
What is that based on? What good outcomes has Russia had from a war, in centuries?
Everyone is far too confident we understand the war in Ukraine even though everyone knows the fog of war is thick.
you're argument is more that American force has been misused, not that it has not place. I'd agree it has been misused for 70 years.
The US has far superior military now than 70 years ago, and military power imbalance is more in favor of US than ever before.
But the world has changed faster. All use of military now is misuse and futile.
We don't look at veterans now and say wow what heroes. We just thank them for their service. We don't celebrate them for "Mission Accomplished". Thanking is like a participation trophy.
But the world has changed faster. All use of military now is misuse and futile.
We don't look at veterans now and say wow what heroes. We just thank them for their service. We don't celebrate them for "Mission Accomplished". Thanking is like a participation trophy.
> I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war.
However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.
As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war.
However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.
I'm ready
This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense.
TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0
Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm
"Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm
TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0
Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm
"Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm
A government needs to wage war at some level to exist.
To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
Dispense with the government?
Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.
Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.
"Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things"
I'd go further and say that unless you achieve the perception of global equality in all things it is futile.
The grass is always perceived as greener, even when it actually isn't.
I'd go further and say that unless you achieve the perception of global equality in all things it is futile.
The grass is always perceived as greener, even when it actually isn't.
Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.
It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue!
I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.
I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.
Ukraine has, in fact, been partly occupied and claimed by a foreign power since 2014.
I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible.
There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
> There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
When did that happen?
When did that happen?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory...
https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-...
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat...
This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-...
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat...
This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.
If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities.
Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
>...Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities.
This is an understandably myopic view. Especially now, as the whole charade of justification and "objectives" of russia's invasion in Ukraine is in full swing.
Perhaps, remembering that in putin's view, Ukraine is not an independent state, its existence is a mistake, the land is a sphere of russia's influence... well, the madman outright wants it "back" into the "empire".
Thus it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy. Language, aspirations and affinities are simply pre-texts for the forceful grab.
Fundamentally, we're dealing with a clash of mentalities. One adopting to modern day and the one still stuck in the "age of empires".
To putin's russians, tank is a symbol of forceful conquest. So it's not going away. Perhaps, more images of the charred russian army tanks could break this perception... temporarily.
This is an understandably myopic view. Especially now, as the whole charade of justification and "objectives" of russia's invasion in Ukraine is in full swing.
Perhaps, remembering that in putin's view, Ukraine is not an independent state, its existence is a mistake, the land is a sphere of russia's influence... well, the madman outright wants it "back" into the "empire".
Thus it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy. Language, aspirations and affinities are simply pre-texts for the forceful grab.
Fundamentally, we're dealing with a clash of mentalities. One adopting to modern day and the one still stuck in the "age of empires".
To putin's russians, tank is a symbol of forceful conquest. So it's not going away. Perhaps, more images of the charred russian army tanks could break this perception... temporarily.
> it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy.
This represents the total failure of diplomacy present in today's discourse.
We no longer think diplomacy affects the outcome and we think that any compromises from our side is just "free stuff" for the other one.
What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? The ones that were missed by the lack of effort?
This represents the total failure of diplomacy present in today's discourse.
We no longer think diplomacy affects the outcome and we think that any compromises from our side is just "free stuff" for the other one.
What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? The ones that were missed by the lack of effort?
>...What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war?
There're no more what ifs. The madman was amassing the troops on the border for months, dismissing any possibilities of preparing an invasion. Then invaded, and openly blackmailed the rest of the world with a nuclear strike, all spreaded by his chief "diplomat".
Present day russia as state proved to be pathologically incapable of maintaining signed treaties.
If anything, the diplomacy needed to rely on the effective sanctions. However, that's were the failure was. Since the 2014 the sanction pressure proved to be insignificant to alter russia's course. Did we get a second chance at it now?
There're no more what ifs. The madman was amassing the troops on the border for months, dismissing any possibilities of preparing an invasion. Then invaded, and openly blackmailed the rest of the world with a nuclear strike, all spreaded by his chief "diplomat".
Present day russia as state proved to be pathologically incapable of maintaining signed treaties.
If anything, the diplomacy needed to rely on the effective sanctions. However, that's were the failure was. Since the 2014 the sanction pressure proved to be insignificant to alter russia's course. Did we get a second chance at it now?
Sanctions are not going to deter anyone from anything. Sanctions is anti-diplomacy.
Why do you need troops if you're not going to amass those? Still does not mean that diplomacy can't be useful.
The mental health argument is weird. Was Bush a madman when he invaded Iraq?
Why do you need troops if you're not going to amass those? Still does not mean that diplomacy can't be useful.
The mental health argument is weird. Was Bush a madman when he invaded Iraq?
Diplomacy was tried and failed.
The point of sanctions isn't deterrence. It's to weaken the Russian economy and slow down the rate at which they can manufacture more weapons.
The point of sanctions isn't deterrence. It's to weaken the Russian economy and slow down the rate at which they can manufacture more weapons.
There were 8 years of diplomacy. There was maybe 1 year of intense diplomacy before the invasion on the 24th of February? Don't listen to Russian disinformation, it'll make you stupider.
I don't remember any "intense diplomacy" other than more threats of sanctions, more public humiliation of Russia, no compromise on any question being discussed. In 8 years I remember Ukraine botching its obligations on Minsk agreements and Steinmeier formula.
With such strength of diplomacy, no wonder it didn't work.
With such strength of diplomacy, no wonder it didn't work.
What sort of compromise would you suggest? How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia this year? And how much more next year when Russia manufacturers some new fake complaint?
Maybe none. Is "NATO" a territory of Ukraine? Is "no limiting of Russian language usage" a territory of Ukraine? How about "not overthrowing legitimately elected president, twice"?
So are you claiming that Russia should be allowed to veto internal Ukrainian political decisions, or prevent them from voluntarily joining other alliances? Wouldn't it be better to just keep killing Russian soldiers until they run out and retreat?
[deleted]
Russian is as banned in Ukraine as French, Hindi, or German are banned in the United States. That is, they are not the primary language taught in schools nor the language in which government business is conducted but nobody's being jailed for speaking it.
The comparison with the US is disingenuous - it is not illegal to open a French language school in the United States, it is in Ukraine.
Previously, Russian was allowed to be taught in schools in Ukraine. It was then banned from being taught in schools even in regions where the majority of people speak Russian.
Furthermore, it is illegal in Ukraine to have a Russian language radio station.
I encourage you to read up on the actual policy differences.
Previously, Russian was allowed to be taught in schools in Ukraine. It was then banned from being taught in schools even in regions where the majority of people speak Russian.
Furthermore, it is illegal in Ukraine to have a Russian language radio station.
I encourage you to read up on the actual policy differences.
Many of your statements are outright false.
Evidence beats a bare denial. (Of course, the original claim didn't have any evidence, either...)
"Yes it is" "No it isn't" is a really uninteresting conversation. Somebody supply some evidence, not just claims.
"Yes it is" "No it isn't" is a really uninteresting conversation. Somebody supply some evidence, not just claims.
I don’t have the time to google citable sources to refute false claims without any evidence in the first place. My sources are my own multiple very recent visits to Ukraine(last visit earlier this year), and my extended Ukrainian family and friends who were all taught either only Russian(older and grew up in Russian occupied territories or Eastern Ukraine) and at times spoke Ukrainian under threat of death. Or were taught both Russian and Ukrainian(younger, recent grads from the Kyiv region)
I've provided some media reports in another comment. Evidence for everything I've said is also very available on Google.
The two articles you linked to show that Ukraine set a minimum 30% quota for songs to be played in Ukrainian, and that people should be greeted in Ukrainian by default and switch languages if asked. Neither of which backs up your outrageous claims.
For radio: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37908828
For schools, businesses and public services: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210401-new-law-stoke...
For schools, businesses and public services: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210401-new-law-stoke...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-langua... does not mention banning Russian-language schools nor, in fact, mentions banning teaching it in addition to Ukrainian in the same school.
There's an education law that says that starting in 2023, all state schools must be taught primarily in Ukranian at and above the fifth grade. While imperfect, it does allow teaching in several minority languages, especially in primary school. Russian is not allowed at state schools above primary school as a teaching language for other subjects, but it can be taught as an elective subject and other organizations are free to teach it. The ECHR implications of this are mentioned specifically by the Venice Commission.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-language/criticis...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190516190140/https://www.presi...
https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?p...
From section 5 of the Venice document.:
"69. Thus, it appears that members of the Bulgarian, Greek, German, Polish, Romanian and Hungarian minorities, in addition to being able to study their language as a subject, may also study one or more other subjects through the medium of their language at the secondary education level. However, members of national minorities who do not speak an official EU language — Byelorussians, Gagauzes, Jews, and, significantly, Russians — will only be able to study at the secondary school level their language as a subject. Thus, a hierarchy is created at the secondary school level, with indigenous peoples potentially treated more favourably than national minorities which speak an official language of the EU, and national minorities which speak an official language of the EU treated more favourably than other national minorities."
There is a high quota for state-language content on radio but other languages are allowed a percentage. From section 7 of the Venice document.:
"95. With regard to the use of languages in broadcasting, Article 24 refers to the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting. At the same time, a transitional provision of the Law (Section IX, point 7.24) amends Article 10 of the latter Law, tightening the language quota requirements, by increasing the proportion of the Ukrainian language content for national and regional broadcasters from 75 to 90 per cent and, for the local broadcasters, from 60 to 80 per cent. This amendment will come into force five years after the Law’s entry into force (i.e. on 16 July 2024)."
So is the situation perfect for everyone? No. Is the EU (and Hungary and some others) pushing Ukraine to compromise? Yes. Have they promised to work on compromises? Also yes.
There's no need to go beyond the actual, documented issues and spread falsehoods and propaganda.
TL;DR: I invite you to read up on the issue.
There's an education law that says that starting in 2023, all state schools must be taught primarily in Ukranian at and above the fifth grade. While imperfect, it does allow teaching in several minority languages, especially in primary school. Russian is not allowed at state schools above primary school as a teaching language for other subjects, but it can be taught as an elective subject and other organizations are free to teach it. The ECHR implications of this are mentioned specifically by the Venice Commission.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-language/criticis...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190516190140/https://www.presi...
https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?p...
From section 5 of the Venice document.:
"69. Thus, it appears that members of the Bulgarian, Greek, German, Polish, Romanian and Hungarian minorities, in addition to being able to study their language as a subject, may also study one or more other subjects through the medium of their language at the secondary education level. However, members of national minorities who do not speak an official EU language — Byelorussians, Gagauzes, Jews, and, significantly, Russians — will only be able to study at the secondary school level their language as a subject. Thus, a hierarchy is created at the secondary school level, with indigenous peoples potentially treated more favourably than national minorities which speak an official language of the EU, and national minorities which speak an official language of the EU treated more favourably than other national minorities."
There is a high quota for state-language content on radio but other languages are allowed a percentage. From section 7 of the Venice document.:
"95. With regard to the use of languages in broadcasting, Article 24 refers to the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting. At the same time, a transitional provision of the Law (Section IX, point 7.24) amends Article 10 of the latter Law, tightening the language quota requirements, by increasing the proportion of the Ukrainian language content for national and regional broadcasters from 75 to 90 per cent and, for the local broadcasters, from 60 to 80 per cent. This amendment will come into force five years after the Law’s entry into force (i.e. on 16 July 2024)."
So is the situation perfect for everyone? No. Is the EU (and Hungary and some others) pushing Ukraine to compromise? Yes. Have they promised to work on compromises? Also yes.
There's no need to go beyond the actual, documented issues and spread falsehoods and propaganda.
TL;DR: I invite you to read up on the issue.
> There's no need to go beyond the actual, documented issues and spread falsehoods and propaganda.
I never did - please don't accuse me of doing so.
1. On the school claim, it is now illegal to have exclusively Russian preschool or elementary school. Your own point concedes that it is illegal to teach other subjects in Russia - students will only be able to study their language as a "subject." That is not a "Russian-language school."
It is also illegal for private schools to teach in only Russian.
2. On Radio: As I said, it is now illegal to have an exclusively Russian language radio and for news subject, it is illegal for the radio to be even Russian majority.
This lines up with both of my claims.
I never did - please don't accuse me of doing so.
1. On the school claim, it is now illegal to have exclusively Russian preschool or elementary school. Your own point concedes that it is illegal to teach other subjects in Russia - students will only be able to study their language as a "subject." That is not a "Russian-language school."
It is also illegal for private schools to teach in only Russian.
2. On Radio: As I said, it is now illegal to have an exclusively Russian language radio and for news subject, it is illegal for the radio to be even Russian majority.
This lines up with both of my claims.
You said the Russian language was outright banned.
Show me that law.
Show me that law.
The result of the invasion does seem to be a huge increase in anti-Russian language and anti-Russian "ethnicity" feeling among Ukrainian-speakers though. Which was pretty minimal before. Which is pretty terrible. I'm not saying it was a cause or justification of the invasion. I'm saying things are getting worse. As they usually do as a result of war. It's horrible.
> A 2012 law, called the law "On the principles of the State language policy" gave the status of regional language to Russian and other minority languages. It allowed the use of minority languages in courts, schools and other government institutions in areas of Ukraine where the national minorities exceed 10% of the population ....
> The bill was adopted amid fistfights in the Ukrainian Parliament building on 3 July 2012, and the opposition said that the procedure of adopting the law was not respected.
Doesn't seem all that minimal to me.
Doesn't seem all that minimal to me.
Russian-speaking citizens don't really want to study Russian as an "elective subject". They want to study in Russian. You have confirmed that it was getting no longer possible.
That's like forcing all Canadians to be only taught in French and subsequently losing Vancouver to the US.
So you have just confirmed everything that propaganda was talking about and were quite efficient at that.
That's like forcing all Canadians to be only taught in French and subsequently losing Vancouver to the US.
So you have just confirmed everything that propaganda was talking about and were quite efficient at that.
The thread started by whimsicalism stating that Russian was banned in Ukraine, and I replied that it had a status similar to French or German in the US.
Nobody has ever banned a language by allowing printing in it, allowing grades up to 4 to be taught in it, allowing secondary schools to teach it as a subject, and allowing private groups to continue teaching it as a primary language.
Nobody has ever banned a language by allowing printing in it, allowing grades up to 4 to be taught in it, allowing secondary schools to teach it as a subject, and allowing private groups to continue teaching it as a primary language.
The correct comparison is Spanish - I wonder what's the status of education in Spanish in thr US.
But more correct case in point is Belgium. If Belgium tried to force education to be in Dutch exclusively, there would very soon be no Belgium.
> allowing grades up to 4 to be taught in it,
"Banning grades after 4 from being taught in Russian" - I did it for you
All 30 years of Ukraine's independence they were seeing new limitations to the use of Russian, every year. Some of these are listed in comments.
But more correct case in point is Belgium. If Belgium tried to force education to be in Dutch exclusively, there would very soon be no Belgium.
> allowing grades up to 4 to be taught in it,
"Banning grades after 4 from being taught in Russian" - I did it for you
All 30 years of Ukraine's independence they were seeing new limitations to the use of Russian, every year. Some of these are listed in comments.
It's said to see such misinformation here.
> [not] banning Russian language
Russian isn't banned in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians use Russian in their day to day life just fine. You can hear Russian spoken by Ukrainians on the battlefield.
> not shelling cities
Check photos from Donetsk in e.g. 2020, city ~10 kilometers from the frontline. Does it look destroyed? No, it looks like any peacetime city.
There were artillery exchanges between both sides targeting military fortifications. Civilian casualties in the last few years have been minimal.
But this doesn't really matter either way. Putin doesn't care about civilian casualties, otherwise why would he start this war?
> [not] banning Russian language
Russian isn't banned in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians use Russian in their day to day life just fine. You can hear Russian spoken by Ukrainians on the battlefield.
> not shelling cities
Check photos from Donetsk in e.g. 2020, city ~10 kilometers from the frontline. Does it look destroyed? No, it looks like any peacetime city.
There were artillery exchanges between both sides targeting military fortifications. Civilian casualties in the last few years have been minimal.
But this doesn't really matter either way. Putin doesn't care about civilian casualties, otherwise why would he start this war?
> Russian isn't banned in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians use Russian in their day to day life just fine. You can here Russian spoken by Ukrainians on the battlefield.
It is illegal to have Russian language radio stations, Russian language schools, and for government to communicate officially in Russian (in addition to Ukrainian & English). Of course people still speak Russian in Ukraine.
> There were artillery exchanges between both sides targeting military fortifications. Civilian casualties in the last few years have been minimal.
Yes from both sides. 3.4k civilian casualties prior to the actual war.
It is illegal to have Russian language radio stations, Russian language schools, and for government to communicate officially in Russian (in addition to Ukrainian & English). Of course people still speak Russian in Ukraine.
> There were artillery exchanges between both sides targeting military fortifications. Civilian casualties in the last few years have been minimal.
Yes from both sides. 3.4k civilian casualties prior to the actual war.
> Of course people still speak Russian in Ukraine.
Then it's not banned as you claimed.
> Yes from both sides. 3.4k civilian casualties prior to the actual war.
With 3000 out of that in 2014 and 2015. In 2021 - 18 civilian deaths, half of that caused by unexploded shells/mines - https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Conflict-...
War in Donbas was actually dying out in the past few years, until Putin decided to escalate it and cause deaths of 10 000s.
Then it's not banned as you claimed.
> Yes from both sides. 3.4k civilian casualties prior to the actual war.
With 3000 out of that in 2014 and 2015. In 2021 - 18 civilian deaths, half of that caused by unexploded shells/mines - https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Conflict-...
War in Donbas was actually dying out in the past few years, until Putin decided to escalate it and cause deaths of 10 000s.
Let's just say I find your comment very on point. I would like to discuss this, but I don't think this is the best venue, and also this is a very sensitive topic and people are likely to be upset. And I wouldn't blame them.
I did want to say your observation is astute.
I did want to say your observation is astute.
Russian language isn't banned anywhere in Ukraine. Indeed, 5 minutes of combat footage from the Ukrainian side will quickly show that the majority of their armed forces speak Russian.
Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is that all those people are "brainwashed by Ukrainian Nazis".
There is some real contention with the status of Russian as 1) the official government language, and 2) the official education language in schools. But I don't think it's fair to phrase that as "banning Russian".
Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is that all those people are "brainwashed by Ukrainian Nazis".
There is some real contention with the status of Russian as 1) the official government language, and 2) the official education language in schools. But I don't think it's fair to phrase that as "banning Russian".
It is illegal to have government communication in Russian or to have a Russian language radio station in Ukraine. I would call that banning Russian language from some aspects of public life.
Do you have a link for this? I hadn't heard about the Russian language being banned. I did know about this from 2019:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-langua...
"The new legislation requires TV and film distribution firms to ensure 90 percent of their content is in Ukrainian and for the proportion of Ukrainian-language printed media and books to be at least 50 percent."
It also says civil servants must speak Ukrainian. It does not say they can't also speak Russian.
In any case, that's not a ban.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-langua...
"The new legislation requires TV and film distribution firms to ensure 90 percent of their content is in Ukrainian and for the proportion of Ukrainian-language printed media and books to be at least 50 percent."
It also says civil servants must speak Ukrainian. It does not say they can't also speak Russian.
In any case, that's not a ban.
It is illegal for any business to offer services or communicate in Russian unless the customer explicitly asks. It is illegal to have Russian language newspapers or schools, all of which existed before the crackdown.
Turkey has done the same thing to Kurdish speakers and most of the West has rightfully condemned their attempts to crack down on the language.
Turkey has done the same thing to Kurdish speakers and most of the West has rightfully condemned their attempts to crack down on the language.
[deleted]
It's legal to use Russian as the primary instruction language in schools for the first 5 years. After that, they have to switch to Ukrainian, but they can still continue to teach Russian as a foreign language class (same as English etc).
On the whole, I'd say that Ukrainian language policies are more akin to Quebec. OTOH Turkey has been packing its prisons with Kurds until recently for crimes such as "insulting Turkishness", so no, it's not really a valid comparison. I don't like the laws on this subject in either Ukraine or in Quebec (or really any place that tries to force cultural cohesion), but specifics do matter.
On the whole, I'd say that Ukrainian language policies are more akin to Quebec. OTOH Turkey has been packing its prisons with Kurds until recently for crimes such as "insulting Turkishness", so no, it's not really a valid comparison. I don't like the laws on this subject in either Ukraine or in Quebec (or really any place that tries to force cultural cohesion), but specifics do matter.
And anyway, the Ukrainian population did take those steps when most of them voted for a political outsider from a Russian speaking background seen as sympathetic to Russian speaking culture and somewhat willing to negotiate better relations with the "independent Republics". Putin interpreted that as a sign of weakness...
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics.
(Unless it’s a crusade.)
Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics.
(Unless it’s a crusade.)
What would your current advice be for the Ukraine?
Getting more tanks ain't it. More war also not it.
Russian empire needs to be dismantled. But unlikely UKR waging war on russia will do it.
Russian empire needs to be dismantled. But unlikely UKR waging war on russia will do it.
So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war.
I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself.
Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away.
Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost will be.
But there is no third option where you simply will war out of existence.
Diplomacy works with certain enemies, and that will hopefully be the outcome in Ukraine too, but that too will come with a heavy price, such as giving up major amounts of territory.
I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself.
Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away.
Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost will be.
But there is no third option where you simply will war out of existence.
Diplomacy works with certain enemies, and that will hopefully be the outcome in Ukraine too, but that too will come with a heavy price, such as giving up major amounts of territory.
Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me.
The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race.
Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works.
What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals. Exactly like in Afghanistan. You can arm them as much as you like, but they will not turn into gandhis with an excess of guns.
My point is not that war doesn't work. My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race.
Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works.
What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals. Exactly like in Afghanistan. You can arm them as much as you like, but they will not turn into gandhis with an excess of guns.
My point is not that war doesn't work. My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
> My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
By what, asking nicely?
By what, asking nicely?
Yes. Be very persuasive. But restrict yourself to persuasion.
The way is for the antiwar people to be more successful than warriors and turn war into the losers' choice.
I refuse to arm myself, refuse to serve in militaries and refuse to support war as much as i am able. If antiwar people are successful, war will evolve out.
The way is for the antiwar people to be more successful than warriors and turn war into the losers' choice.
I refuse to arm myself, refuse to serve in militaries and refuse to support war as much as i am able. If antiwar people are successful, war will evolve out.
Persuasion has already been tried and failed. If someone comes to kill you will you fight, or just lay down and die? In the real world sometimes those are the only two options. To believe otherwise is simply utopian naivety.
Do you think Ukraine can persuade Putin to call off the invasion? If they didn’t defend themselves, they’d be a Russian province or puppet state today.
That’s always the unfortunate downside of relying on only persuasion. Some people will just take what they want if you don’t force them to stop.
Just read about how well persuasion (aka “appeasement”) worked in the buildup to WW2. Spoiler: it didn’t.
That’s always the unfortunate downside of relying on only persuasion. Some people will just take what they want if you don’t force them to stop.
Just read about how well persuasion (aka “appeasement”) worked in the buildup to WW2. Spoiler: it didn’t.
[deleted]
In the specific case of Ukraine, a people's war of national liberation is a pretty classic form of nation building. That's how a lot of nations came about. The Taliban are a particularly bad analogy, because they represent regionalist resistance against central government in Afghanistan. Countries like Italy, the USA, or Vietnam were formed in this manner.
> the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals
Whether they do that as a democratic government, a dictatorship, a paragovernamental entity, or a set of mobs makes all the difference in the world.
Whether they do that as a democratic government, a dictatorship, a paragovernamental entity, or a set of mobs makes all the difference in the world.
Anyone pointing a gun at me is not my friend. Anyone that chooses a gun to get their way is not my friend.
I don't trust people with guns. They are the same because they all choose violence to get their way.
"Democratic" gun holders point more guns at me today than mobs.
I don't trust people with guns. They are the same because they all choose violence to get their way.
"Democratic" gun holders point more guns at me today than mobs.
The main problem with a pacifist approach is Darwinism. When the violent can herd/control/kill the non-violent. Then the next generation of people are likely to be of the dominant.
Words and persuasion are all very good, until you meet people who simply don't care.
Words and persuasion are all very good, until you meet people who simply don't care.
The nature of the entire thing is that usually there is exactly one of those entities pointing their guns at you. So yeah, that one will have "most guns pointed at you".
You can have more than one, but it's a huge life vs. death issue. You can't have zero.
You can have more than one, but it's a huge life vs. death issue. You can't have zero.
The Talibans are the Afghanistan, or a bit part of it.
"Afghanistan" is a western colonial construct made up of many groups. Most states are western colonial constructs. We might need to move past that.
Who is "we"? At this point, western colonial powers no longer occupy Afghanistan. If the Afghans want to break up their country into multiple separate states based on traditional ethnic boundaries or whatever they're free to do so.
Not the OP, but they should seek for peace as soon as possible, that will reduce the number of dead Ukrainians and also the amount of territory that they might further lose.
Ideally the Zelensky regime should have gotten the message and should have left for the West as soon as the Russian paratroopers landed at Gostomel. The Czechoslovaks in '68 and the Hungarians in '56 had done exactly that. Yes, that would have probably meant a couple of decades of a Russian-backed puppet regime in Kyiv but the future would have been open for anything. As things stand right now Ukraine has almost no access to the Black Sea anymore, about 7 million people have left their homes, not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians dead in this war.
Ideally the Zelensky regime should have gotten the message and should have left for the West as soon as the Russian paratroopers landed at Gostomel. The Czechoslovaks in '68 and the Hungarians in '56 had done exactly that. Yes, that would have probably meant a couple of decades of a Russian-backed puppet regime in Kyiv but the future would have been open for anything. As things stand right now Ukraine has almost no access to the Black Sea anymore, about 7 million people have left their homes, not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians dead in this war.
> We've had enough of the european way of war.
So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?
So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?
Your comment is extremely misleading.
Modern militaries are rapidly transforming into what was science fiction, say, 50 years ago: almost exclusively remote-controlled robots and primarily (or even exclusively) autonomous robots.
If you call small, unmanned, armored vehicles "tanks" you are misleading people.
In modern militaries, whether it be surface ships, submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc.... within another few decades, people almost certainly won't be inside of them. People will control them remotely and/or algorithms/artificial intelligence will control them.
What we are seeing in Ukraine is Russia and NATO disposing obsolete military weapons in a disgusting farce of a war. Washington and Moscow should have divided up Ukraine like they did much of Europe in the waning days of World War II.
There was no need for a single bullet to be fired, let alone mortars and missiles. Washington antagonized Moscow ceaselessly. Eventually, Moscow took the bait. It's tragedy that could have, and should have been avoided.
Nonetheless, just because these days you see men in tanks fighting in Ukraine on your phone or laptop, don't think that "Tanks are still relevant in modern warfare!" They aren't. Tanks, by which I mean large vehicles with people inside of them, are obsolete in modern warfare.
People who claim tanks are still viable in modern warfare are either fools, liars, or manipulative purveyors of falsehoods who enjoy twisting words by referring to small, unmanned robots as "tanks."
The Economist.com is yet another legacy media property that regularly engages in obvious yellow journalism in a doomed struggle to remain profitable. Articles with headlines like, "Does the Tank Have a Future?" are clickbait.
I didn't take the bait; I didn't read the article. Why should I have? A better article would have been, "Does Economist.com Have a Future?"
Modern militaries are rapidly transforming into what was science fiction, say, 50 years ago: almost exclusively remote-controlled robots and primarily (or even exclusively) autonomous robots.
If you call small, unmanned, armored vehicles "tanks" you are misleading people.
In modern militaries, whether it be surface ships, submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc.... within another few decades, people almost certainly won't be inside of them. People will control them remotely and/or algorithms/artificial intelligence will control them.
What we are seeing in Ukraine is Russia and NATO disposing obsolete military weapons in a disgusting farce of a war. Washington and Moscow should have divided up Ukraine like they did much of Europe in the waning days of World War II.
There was no need for a single bullet to be fired, let alone mortars and missiles. Washington antagonized Moscow ceaselessly. Eventually, Moscow took the bait. It's tragedy that could have, and should have been avoided.
Nonetheless, just because these days you see men in tanks fighting in Ukraine on your phone or laptop, don't think that "Tanks are still relevant in modern warfare!" They aren't. Tanks, by which I mean large vehicles with people inside of them, are obsolete in modern warfare.
People who claim tanks are still viable in modern warfare are either fools, liars, or manipulative purveyors of falsehoods who enjoy twisting words by referring to small, unmanned robots as "tanks."
The Economist.com is yet another legacy media property that regularly engages in obvious yellow journalism in a doomed struggle to remain profitable. Articles with headlines like, "Does the Tank Have a Future?" are clickbait.
I didn't take the bait; I didn't read the article. Why should I have? A better article would have been, "Does Economist.com Have a Future?"
This is a complete misunderstanding of warfare. Drones cannot take and hold ground. Without infantry, an external power cannot exert influence over an area. Sure, they can wantonly kill civilians, but that doesn't mean they are in charge. Until and unless autonomous drones with general artificial intelligence can be mass-produced and deployed on the scale of infantry brigades, massed infantry will be required. Even then, an EMP could disable those drones in one fell swoop.
They are absolutely not disposing of obsolete weapons -- and the West has no desire to "carve up Ukraine". How did Washington antagonize Moscow? NATO is a voluntary defensive pact. The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments, asked to join NATO. What good would it do for the West to start a war? What is there to gain from brinksmanship when the stakes are a strategic nuclear exchange?
The idea that this war is at all something provoked by the West, or in any way defensive on Russia's part, is pure Russian propaganda. The Putin regime fears the democratization of its neighbors resulting in its own people losing confidence in its ability to lead the country. This phase of the war is merely an extension of Russia's desire to quash any semblance of Ukrainian agency -- this war started in 2014, after the last vestige of Russia's control over Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, fled the country.
Finally, your view actively denies the Ukrainian people their agency. If they did not find this war worthwhile, if they did not think Ukraine as an idea was worth defending, why are they dying in their tens of thousands to defend it?
They are absolutely not disposing of obsolete weapons -- and the West has no desire to "carve up Ukraine". How did Washington antagonize Moscow? NATO is a voluntary defensive pact. The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments, asked to join NATO. What good would it do for the West to start a war? What is there to gain from brinksmanship when the stakes are a strategic nuclear exchange?
The idea that this war is at all something provoked by the West, or in any way defensive on Russia's part, is pure Russian propaganda. The Putin regime fears the democratization of its neighbors resulting in its own people losing confidence in its ability to lead the country. This phase of the war is merely an extension of Russia's desire to quash any semblance of Ukrainian agency -- this war started in 2014, after the last vestige of Russia's control over Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, fled the country.
Finally, your view actively denies the Ukrainian people their agency. If they did not find this war worthwhile, if they did not think Ukraine as an idea was worth defending, why are they dying in their tens of thousands to defend it?
Putin himself tells everyone that his goal is conquering territories, Eastern Europeans tell everyone that Russian goal is conquering territories, yet people on the internet are still parroting "NATO's fault". I wish everyone read the book Bloodlands first before supporting Russians in their cruel conquests.
YarickR2(1)
> The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments.
Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government.
That narrative will really have to go in favor of much more granular approach to post-WW2 history.
Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government.
That narrative will really have to go in favor of much more granular approach to post-WW2 history.
> Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government.
Which ones?
Which ones?
I think that's Bulgaria, Romania and Moldavia, but maybe more. And, of course, Ukraine and Belarus. Maybe some of Balkan states as well if you count them as eastern european.
[deleted]
OK, and Russia caused the pogroms and a genocidal famine in Ukraine. It's not a good idea to learn your country's history in an overly rosy way. In fact, being kind to nationalists may have caused the present war. Russians should know that their country has had a sordid history.
Soviet regime has caused famine in present day Ukraine, southern Russia, Volga region and Kazakhstan.
Most of those who starved (arithmetically) were in what is present day Russian Federation.
Are you sure you can tell propaganda from history?
"Russia caused the pogroms" (sic) is another gem of same quality.
I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war, you can start by not pretending that you don't have your own "sordid history" and is allowed to judge others.
Are you sure you can tell propaganda from history?
"Russia caused the pogroms" (sic) is another gem of same quality.
I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war, you can start by not pretending that you don't have your own "sordid history" and is allowed to judge others.
> I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war, you can start by not pretending that you don't have your own "sordid history" and is allowed to judge others.
Indeed. And the problem is nationalism. Every country has had a shameful past. But Putin, that fascist and crackpot, who Russians largely admire, is in denial about that.
Indeed. And the problem is nationalism. Every country has had a shameful past. But Putin, that fascist and crackpot, who Russians largely admire, is in denial about that.
It can be said of Ukraine. Its nationalistic desire to be a solid Ukrainian nation ("above everything else"), instead of a federation comprised of very diverse parts for whom just being together requires a lot of searching for a middle ground and compromises.
>...But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war...
As opposed to the war ...indeed.
Here it goes again, everyone still needs to learn how to treat russians.
Well, finally, the world has figured it out and summarized it succintly in the manner russia treats the rest of the world:
"Russian ship go f...!"
As opposed to the war ...indeed.
Here it goes again, everyone still needs to learn how to treat russians.
Well, finally, the world has figured it out and summarized it succintly in the manner russia treats the rest of the world:
"Russian ship go f...!"
That's the gist of it. Human history is war.
Even Fukuyama has now retracted his paradigm that the history is over.
Prepare for a lot of war, hope you enjoy it. And not even with Russia.
> "Russian ship go f...!"
I think that phrase is a fake. However, these guys were captured, then declared dead, then surrendered and kept in captivity for some time. To put that in perspective. And that is real.
Even Fukuyama has now retracted his paradigm that the history is over.
Prepare for a lot of war, hope you enjoy it. And not even with Russia.
> "Russian ship go f...!"
I think that phrase is a fake. However, these guys were captured, then declared dead, then surrendered and kept in captivity for some time. To put that in perspective. And that is real.
Tanks used correctly and in sufficient mass produces something called the Shock Effect of Armor. Smart munitions are getting more and more effective, but it's really hard to calmly lob missiles at a charging unit of tanks supported by artillery, infantry, CAS, etc.
"Principle: armor in strength produces decisive shock effect
The psychological shock effect that comes to troops on the receiving end of a massed armored assault is terrific. This effect radiates from the point of attack in concentric semi-circles, as do the waves from a stone dropped in the water near the edge of a millpond. If the attack is in strength, these shockwaves reach to the enemy division, corps and army headquarters. Shock effect gives armor part of its protection and hastens the disintegration of the enemy force attacked. The shock effect of the mass employment of armor varies as the square or cube of the number of tanks used. Attacking with armored strength too small to produce decisive shock effect often results in great losses and inconclusive results."
https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/Historical...
Simply put, they are pants-soiling terrifying spectacles of death and they prove overwhelming. Once significant momentum of a well-executed armored attack has been gained, they are difficult to slow or stop. Drone swarms may make this tactic obsolete, but we're not there yet.
"Principle: armor in strength produces decisive shock effect
The psychological shock effect that comes to troops on the receiving end of a massed armored assault is terrific. This effect radiates from the point of attack in concentric semi-circles, as do the waves from a stone dropped in the water near the edge of a millpond. If the attack is in strength, these shockwaves reach to the enemy division, corps and army headquarters. Shock effect gives armor part of its protection and hastens the disintegration of the enemy force attacked. The shock effect of the mass employment of armor varies as the square or cube of the number of tanks used. Attacking with armored strength too small to produce decisive shock effect often results in great losses and inconclusive results."
https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/Historical...
Simply put, they are pants-soiling terrifying spectacles of death and they prove overwhelming. Once significant momentum of a well-executed armored attack has been gained, they are difficult to slow or stop. Drone swarms may make this tactic obsolete, but we're not there yet.
Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel).
While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of a $500 drone with the equivalent of a RKG-3 grenade to take one out is really the only relevant part of the question. Tanks are dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe
Edit to add; "expensive to operate" was a bit of an understatement, the logistical support required for a tank company is tremendous, totally preposperous; 1000s of gallons of fuel a day, 3 types of ammo, support equipment and personnel.
While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of a $500 drone with the equivalent of a RKG-3 grenade to take one out is really the only relevant part of the question. Tanks are dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe
Edit to add; "expensive to operate" was a bit of an understatement, the logistical support required for a tank company is tremendous, totally preposperous; 1000s of gallons of fuel a day, 3 types of ammo, support equipment and personnel.
To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere.
ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can.
When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can.
When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
[deleted]
Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
Because when a tank fires its APFSDS gun, the muzzle velocity is 1500 meters-per-second.
In contrast, a drone flies at 25 to 50 meters-per-second.
------
To put it in concrete terms, a tank 3000 meters away will hit its target in 2 seconds. A drone 3000 meters away will take 1.5 minutes.
In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range. That's more than enough time for the tank commander to see the Javelin and return fire, killing you before the Javelin even strikes the tank. (This is why "fire and forget" is so important on a missile like the Javelin). So we can see that even a missile like a Javelin has a significant speed disadvantage on these long-range plains that exist on the Donbas region. Its a different fight than the typical heavy-urban environment that Ukraine was doing well in a few months ago.
-----
Its one thing to fight a tank in urban combat, where they can only see 200 meters out (too many buildings blocking your vision and the tank's vision).
Its a totally different thing to fight a tank on open plains, where 3000m worth of vision is common.
In contrast, a drone flies at 25 to 50 meters-per-second.
------
To put it in concrete terms, a tank 3000 meters away will hit its target in 2 seconds. A drone 3000 meters away will take 1.5 minutes.
In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range. That's more than enough time for the tank commander to see the Javelin and return fire, killing you before the Javelin even strikes the tank. (This is why "fire and forget" is so important on a missile like the Javelin). So we can see that even a missile like a Javelin has a significant speed disadvantage on these long-range plains that exist on the Donbas region. Its a different fight than the typical heavy-urban environment that Ukraine was doing well in a few months ago.
-----
Its one thing to fight a tank in urban combat, where they can only see 200 meters out (too many buildings blocking your vision and the tank's vision).
Its a totally different thing to fight a tank on open plains, where 3000m worth of vision is common.
That 2 seconds is the projectile. Unless you're already aimed directly at the AT firing point it's going to take more than 2 seconds for the tank to acquire a target lock and swing the turret into place.
Assume the turret is 90 degrees off target and it will take 2 seconds just to swing the turret around. Assuming it takes 2 seconds to notice the AT round fired, 2 seconds to target lock, that's still 8 seconds total for the tank shell to hit.
That's not great for the AT team, but it is a survivable amount of time for shoot-and-scoot tactics, enough that it's going to be a hellish war of attrition between armor & AT teams, not a completely one-sided battle. Which seems to be roughly what we're seeing in eastern Ukraine, unfortunately. A truly shitty and hellish situation all around.
Assume the turret is 90 degrees off target and it will take 2 seconds just to swing the turret around. Assuming it takes 2 seconds to notice the AT round fired, 2 seconds to target lock, that's still 8 seconds total for the tank shell to hit.
That's not great for the AT team, but it is a survivable amount of time for shoot-and-scoot tactics, enough that it's going to be a hellish war of attrition between armor & AT teams, not a completely one-sided battle. Which seems to be roughly what we're seeing in eastern Ukraine, unfortunately. A truly shitty and hellish situation all around.
> Assume the turret is 90 degrees off target and it will take 2 seconds just to swing the turret around. Assuming it takes 2 seconds to notice the AT round fired, 2 seconds to target lock, that's still 8 seconds total for the tank shell to hit.
That's a lot of "assumptions" that still leads to a virtual tie situation: both parties kill each other.
There's also the situation where the tank commander emerges out of hide-position, fires a shell, and kills the enemy infantry before they even know where the tank is, and the tank then retreats back into hide-position before any enemy even knows that a tank is there.
A tank in turret-down position is still exceptionally difficult to spot. And that tank commander looking out, waiting for the ideal time to ambush with his main tank gun, will have night-vision, thermal vision, and loads of other equipment.
See this screenshot of the Chieftan's discussion: https://imgur.com/tk10YHN.jpg
In "turret down" position, pretty much only the tank commander is visible. They can spot you 3000m away in this kind of position thanks to modern binoculars.
----------------
Given that the tank moves at 50km/hr, and has more expensive equipment (thermal vision / etc. etc.), the tank honestly has the advantage in most of these fights.
Infantry might (?) have the advantage of surprise and hiding. But tanks also might have that advantage. There's no guarantee that the infantry always ambush the tanks. Especially when you consider how much faster a tank travels, and the shear size / distance that these weapons cover (a tank can choose any point with 3000m line-of-sight to attack the enemy infantry, knowing that the infantry is too slow to keep up with the tank's movement).
That's a lot of "assumptions" that still leads to a virtual tie situation: both parties kill each other.
There's also the situation where the tank commander emerges out of hide-position, fires a shell, and kills the enemy infantry before they even know where the tank is, and the tank then retreats back into hide-position before any enemy even knows that a tank is there.
A tank in turret-down position is still exceptionally difficult to spot. And that tank commander looking out, waiting for the ideal time to ambush with his main tank gun, will have night-vision, thermal vision, and loads of other equipment.
See this screenshot of the Chieftan's discussion: https://imgur.com/tk10YHN.jpg
In "turret down" position, pretty much only the tank commander is visible. They can spot you 3000m away in this kind of position thanks to modern binoculars.
----------------
Given that the tank moves at 50km/hr, and has more expensive equipment (thermal vision / etc. etc.), the tank honestly has the advantage in most of these fights.
Infantry might (?) have the advantage of surprise and hiding. But tanks also might have that advantage. There's no guarantee that the infantry always ambush the tanks. Especially when you consider how much faster a tank travels, and the shear size / distance that these weapons cover (a tank can choose any point with 3000m line-of-sight to attack the enemy infantry, knowing that the infantry is too slow to keep up with the tank's movement).
I think the assumptions are reasonable, and if you hit the tank you may only have to survive that first shot of return fire.
Don't get me wrong, it's not ideal and the fighting is more about attrition than superior tactics. I agree completely that an open field is just about the worst place to deploy the AT system.Tanks may have to travel through open areas but they do so to get to & from locations of more strategic interest, and it's best to hit them in those places, or if enroute then at a location where there's a least more natural cover. And I don't think the tank is at all obsolete quite yet.
Don't get me wrong, it's not ideal and the fighting is more about attrition than superior tactics. I agree completely that an open field is just about the worst place to deploy the AT system.Tanks may have to travel through open areas but they do so to get to & from locations of more strategic interest, and it's best to hit them in those places, or if enroute then at a location where there's a least more natural cover. And I don't think the tank is at all obsolete quite yet.
> To put it in concrete terms, a tank 3000 meters away will hit its target in 2 seconds. A drone 3000 meters away will take 1.5 minutes.
> In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range.
What's the latency for the turret to pivot to the target angle? I suppose it's pretty fast but let's say in worst case 180deg? How long does that take? 1s? 10s?
> In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range.
What's the latency for the turret to pivot to the target angle? I suppose it's pretty fast but let's say in worst case 180deg? How long does that take? 1s? 10s?
T72 is about 3 seconds for 180 degrees. But it also takes time for a human in the tank to notice the incoming AT round, trace it back to the source, acquire a target lock, and then swing the turret over.
I can only guess at how long the full return fire process takes, but you only need to be pointing a javelin AT at the tank, it will do the rest. You can be sprinting away pretty much as you launch and get 50 meters away. Safe? Hell no, but it's not as bad as the "2 seconds" comment makes it out to be.
I can only guess at how long the full return fire process takes, but you only need to be pointing a javelin AT at the tank, it will do the rest. You can be sprinting away pretty much as you launch and get 50 meters away. Safe? Hell no, but it's not as bad as the "2 seconds" comment makes it out to be.
Only Javelin has that range, mind you.
NLAW has 1000m range. AT4 and Panzerfaust3 has 300m range.
If you are using an NLAW and the enemy tank has line of sight 3000 meters away, you are outgunned, outranged, and outmaneuvered and almost certainly will lose.
The tank has 40+ shots with a firing rate every 4 seconds. Javelin is a 50LB weapon that is single shot, so a miss (due to thermal smoke grenades / flares) is a critical mistake that will kill you.
Running away at 3km/hr only delays the inevitable, as the tank travels 50km/hr to close the distance with you... And had far more shots to invoke suppressing fire to scare you from running away effectively.
---------
The advanced weapons help, but a tank is a tank. It's faster than you, has more range than any weapon you can carry, is almost always decked out with the best night vision optics, has more bullets, bigger bullets, and armor to negate most of your weapons.
At best the advanced missiles even the odds. I'm not sure if I'd call it an advantage though, because of the single shot nature / long reload times of missiles / recoilless rifles, especially compared to tank guns.
NLAW has 1000m range. AT4 and Panzerfaust3 has 300m range.
If you are using an NLAW and the enemy tank has line of sight 3000 meters away, you are outgunned, outranged, and outmaneuvered and almost certainly will lose.
The tank has 40+ shots with a firing rate every 4 seconds. Javelin is a 50LB weapon that is single shot, so a miss (due to thermal smoke grenades / flares) is a critical mistake that will kill you.
Running away at 3km/hr only delays the inevitable, as the tank travels 50km/hr to close the distance with you... And had far more shots to invoke suppressing fire to scare you from running away effectively.
---------
The advanced weapons help, but a tank is a tank. It's faster than you, has more range than any weapon you can carry, is almost always decked out with the best night vision optics, has more bullets, bigger bullets, and armor to negate most of your weapons.
At best the advanced missiles even the odds. I'm not sure if I'd call it an advantage though, because of the single shot nature / long reload times of missiles / recoilless rifles, especially compared to tank guns.
How much ammo can a drone carry? Even if its an African ... drone or a European one, it's a simple question of weight ratios.
Perhaps it could carry 5 — no, 3! — holy hand grenades.
If you're talking about DJI or equivalents they only have 30 minutes or so of flight time and can carry at most one bomb at a time. They can be useful in guerrilla situations but firepower wise it's not even in the same league as a tank with 40-60 cannon rounds and several thousand machine gun rounds.
What if the drone were so inexpensive and portable that you could consider it like you do ammunition? Then the flight time and payload is much less critical - it's just a pilot-able bomb.
This is called a guided missile, or a loitering munition, depending mostly on how quickly it gets to the target. They’ve been around for a while and are very useful but have not rendered tanks obsolete yet.
What if we just donated that money to all these hostile countries' citizens, and told them we'd stop the donations if they piss us off? Instead of dreaming of turning the future warzone from Terminator 2 into a reality?
Well, that (economic intervention) has effectively happened to Russia. And yet they are still going it seems. So to answer your question: Nothing would happen, at least for a few months it seems.
[deleted]
It's easier for infantry to carry one drone and ammunitions than a set of one-shot drones.
In practice it’s actually the opposite. A reusable drone has to have enough fuel to come back, which halves its range compared to a loitering munition that doesn’t come back. A reusable drone isn’t intended to collide with the target, and can’t be rocket-powered, so it will be much slower to reach and strike a target when the target is identified. It has to have the ability to land and to be rearmed, which adds complexity and thus expense.
Past a certain size a drone can fly high enough and far enough that it fills the combat role of an aircraft, but as far as man-portable systems go, well-resourced militaries demonstrate consistent preference for single-use guided explosives like the Javelin or Switchblade to maximize range and payload size and minimize time to impact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
Past a certain size a drone can fly high enough and far enough that it fills the combat role of an aircraft, but as far as man-portable systems go, well-resourced militaries demonstrate consistent preference for single-use guided explosives like the Javelin or Switchblade to maximize range and payload size and minimize time to impact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
They don't offer the same level of firepower. A portable drone may be faster employed than a helicopter, large drone, or close support aircraft, but it suffers from lack of payload. It also takes longer to get on target, and has it's own set of vulnerabilities. (The vulnerability argument being that even if it is expendable, a drone disrupted or shot down does not help your unit eliminate the threat it was facing.)
A large-caliber, direct-fire gun provides long range, precise, and instant effects. As The Chieftan explains: https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8?t=934 (timecode link provided.)
A large-caliber, direct-fire gun provides long range, precise, and instant effects. As The Chieftan explains: https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8?t=934 (timecode link provided.)
I don't think the commodity drone approach is going to work very well against a competently-run military with electronic warfare capabilities the Russians seem not to be employing.
To defeat capable EW, you'd need self-directed swarms of drones, and we don't have those yet (especially not at Best Buy). I agree that remotely-piloted commodity drones would likely make a terrible mess of something like an African army with T-55s and not much else, and of course today's Russia (I never thought I'd write that sentence).
I concur on the cost of armor, but it comes with significant benefits, hence the investment we've made in logistics to support them. It's only preposterous when the situation makes it so, like a highly mobile island hopping campaign. They worked pretty well in Iraq. Twice.
To defeat capable EW, you'd need self-directed swarms of drones, and we don't have those yet (especially not at Best Buy). I agree that remotely-piloted commodity drones would likely make a terrible mess of something like an African army with T-55s and not much else, and of course today's Russia (I never thought I'd write that sentence).
I concur on the cost of armor, but it comes with significant benefits, hence the investment we've made in logistics to support them. It's only preposterous when the situation makes it so, like a highly mobile island hopping campaign. They worked pretty well in Iraq. Twice.
Dropping an RKG-3 grenade on a tank from a cheap drone also requires that the tank be stopped -- something that happens far less often in a war of movement than in trench warfare. The war in Ukraine has been extraordinarily static (like the Nagorno-Karabakh War), and this has provided the opportunities for COTS drones to be useful in this way. A combined-arms offensive on a divisional or corps front might take a handful of losses this way, but it most certainly will not be stopped.
Drones or no drones, I'd rather be sitting behind 35cm of hardened steel than out in the open with maybe 2cm of body armor max.
RPGs have existed for along time. How does using a drone to deliver the grenade instead of a rocket really change the scenario?
Would you rather take on a tank with an RPG in hand, or be safe in a bunker and remote control your attack?
If you made a misstake in the first scenario, there is no second try. But if you have a second drone, there is.
(ukraine has more men than drones, though)
If you made a misstake in the first scenario, there is no second try. But if you have a second drone, there is.
(ukraine has more men than drones, though)
Drones are slow and not heavily armored. It seems like a shot gun would be good enough to take them down before they got close enough to hurt your tank. While they are doing a good job now it wouldn't surprise me if anti drone counter measures are easy\quick to develop.
The "shock" part of "shock effect" is kind of diminished if you can hide miles away from tanks, completely safe, and neuter them.
A munition that doesn’t have to come back is always going to have more range and be able to carry more payload weight than one that does have to come back afterward.
The Trophy Weapon System can intercept and defeat anti-tank missiles and grenades and has been proven in combat. Both US and Israeli tanks have those mounted on them. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss tanks as dead. Just older tanks without active countermeasures are dead.
Those active countermeasures can be fitted to lighter armoured cars or self-propelled guns. At some point the costs of carrying 50 tonnes of passive armour outweigh the benefits.
[deleted]
What about drone tanks?
Battleships are pretty intimidating too. Still obsolete.
What we’ve seen in Ukraine is far from modern tanks fighting with modern tank doctrine.
Yes, technically some of those tanks are ‘modern’, but many of them appear to have fake reactive armor, are poorly built, and they are being deployed without infantry, air, or logistical support. It’s the perfect recipe to lose all of your tanks.
Yes, technically some of those tanks are ‘modern’, but many of them appear to have fake reactive armor, are poorly built, and they are being deployed without infantry, air, or logistical support. It’s the perfect recipe to lose all of your tanks.
Most of what you have mentioned are inherent shortcomings of tanks in a modern battlefield. They are fuel intensive. They need massive logistical support. They are vulnerable to targeted attacks, like from drones. None of this is unique to the Ukraine situation.
It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.
It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.
Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic being offered as proof of the end of tanks apply to drones as well?
This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability.
There is nothing new about this conflict as far as tanks and ATGMs. Everything happening here happened in the Yom Kippor war, in Grozny, in Syria, and in Yemen.
You just have a bunch of lazy bloggers and journalists making a sensationalized claim to sound like something exciting and dramatic is happening, at the cost of grossly distorting the actual reality.
What will change is future tanks will likely prioritize active protection systems and sensors over bulk armor. But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon.
Example, Rheinmetall just announced their new tank prototype this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE
A couple key features:
* an active protection system specifically for top attack munitions like Javelin
* a remote weapons station with a machine gun specifically for engaging small low altitude drones like quad copters
* flexible manning, including looking at autonomy and remote control
* ability to host drones for its own situational awareness
* a loitering munition that's being co-designed, launched by the big gun
Maybe the era of the T-72 is over. But the people confidently predicting the era of tanks and armored fighting vehicles in general are over, cuz missiles, cuz drones, frankly, have no clue what they're talking about.
This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability.
There is nothing new about this conflict as far as tanks and ATGMs. Everything happening here happened in the Yom Kippor war, in Grozny, in Syria, and in Yemen.
You just have a bunch of lazy bloggers and journalists making a sensationalized claim to sound like something exciting and dramatic is happening, at the cost of grossly distorting the actual reality.
What will change is future tanks will likely prioritize active protection systems and sensors over bulk armor. But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon.
Example, Rheinmetall just announced their new tank prototype this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE
A couple key features:
* an active protection system specifically for top attack munitions like Javelin
* a remote weapons station with a machine gun specifically for engaging small low altitude drones like quad copters
* flexible manning, including looking at autonomy and remote control
* ability to host drones for its own situational awareness
* a loitering munition that's being co-designed, launched by the big gun
Maybe the era of the T-72 is over. But the people confidently predicting the era of tanks and armored fighting vehicles in general are over, cuz missiles, cuz drones, frankly, have no clue what they're talking about.
> and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times
and missed the moral of the story...
> This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability.
The mythology of the board game Go is that it was invented by a Chinese general in an attempt to teach his son strategy and tactics. In that domain there is a concept called Aji, in which you should not write off pieces on the board that are doomed. The fact that they are still on the board makes them useful, even if they can't possibly be saved, saved only by gross error by the opponent, or saving them is possible but devastating to your overall prospects.
and missed the moral of the story...
> This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability.
The mythology of the board game Go is that it was invented by a Chinese general in an attempt to teach his son strategy and tactics. In that domain there is a concept called Aji, in which you should not write off pieces on the board that are doomed. The fact that they are still on the board makes them useful, even if they can't possibly be saved, saved only by gross error by the opponent, or saving them is possible but devastating to your overall prospects.
So we might see tank designs sort of repeat the evolution of surface warships. Such ships used to rely on armor for survivability, but the advent of submarines and aircraft (and later guided missiles) made that approach unviable. Now the armor is mostly gone, and instead ships rely on a mix of sensors, active defenses, and mobility to avoid getting hit at all. Of course they're still vulnerable, but nothing else can accomplish the same missions, so there's no other option but to keep building more.
I think the comparison is very apt.
Practical APS is going to require a full sphere LPI radar of some sort. Given you already have to build that, it's logical to leverage it as a sensor for sensor fusion in general. Same goes with IR, both distributed aperture systems and telescope/periscope. EW equipment is going to require antenna apertures that can cover DC to 6ghz. If you gotta build those might as well aggregate all the needs into a common set of apertures.
The logic here is straightforward, and it does directly lead to thinking of future MBTs as like the mini land version of multi role naval frigates, imo.
Practical APS is going to require a full sphere LPI radar of some sort. Given you already have to build that, it's logical to leverage it as a sensor for sensor fusion in general. Same goes with IR, both distributed aperture systems and telescope/periscope. EW equipment is going to require antenna apertures that can cover DC to 6ghz. If you gotta build those might as well aggregate all the needs into a common set of apertures.
The logic here is straightforward, and it does directly lead to thinking of future MBTs as like the mini land version of multi role naval frigates, imo.
> Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic being offered as proof of the end of tanks apply to drones as well?
Being armoured is the tank's core value proposition in a way that it isn't for those other examples. The thing that a tank can do that a self-propelled gun can't is survive on a battlefield where small arms fire is overwhelmingly common and armour-penetrating munitions aren't. If we get to a point where that situation is no longer relevant, the tank's reason to exist disappears.
Being armoured is the tank's core value proposition in a way that it isn't for those other examples. The thing that a tank can do that a self-propelled gun can't is survive on a battlefield where small arms fire is overwhelmingly common and armour-penetrating munitions aren't. If we get to a point where that situation is no longer relevant, the tank's reason to exist disappears.
Aircraft are fast, have actual deterrents against attacks and can fire from a distance. Tanks need to be close to attack, are slow and completely vulnerable to drone attacks.
For ground combat tanks are very comparable. They can have an effect on any target within 2km or more within single seconds of spotting it. Tanks also have deterrents, such as the basics of combined arms tactics, but also smoke screens, etc.
> an active protection system specifically for top attack munitions like Javelin
Worth noting: The western-made MANPADs are designed to exploit a serious design flaw in Soviet-era tanks. The ammunition is stored in the turret where it is easy to ignite externally. That's why we have so much youtube of Russian tanks blowing their turret sky-high.
Long story short, design failure can't be remedied by anything they can put on the top of the tank unless it's another tank.
Worth noting: The western-made MANPADs are designed to exploit a serious design flaw in Soviet-era tanks. The ammunition is stored in the turret where it is easy to ignite externally. That's why we have so much youtube of Russian tanks blowing their turret sky-high.
Long story short, design failure can't be remedied by anything they can put on the top of the tank unless it's another tank.
I know it's cool to throw acronyms around but MANPADS stands for MAN-Portable Air Defence Systems.
They're for shooting down aircraft. The Javelin and NLAW are not examples of MANPADS.
They're for shooting down aircraft. The Javelin and NLAW are not examples of MANPADS.
My mistake. Usually I know the (recently popularized due to use in Ukraine) modern infantry tools a shade better. I have been a sleep-deprived traveler this week!
Yeah, that's an issue too, though frankly speaking, partitioned ammo rack and blow out panels be danged, I don't think I'd want to be inside an Abrams that got hit by a Javelin or equivalent.
Of course not. But getting out and walking away surely beats an explosion than blows the turret off. No one survives that.
MANPADS are anti-air weapons. Also, what western tank doesn't store most of its ammunition in the turret?
On an Abrams the ready to use rounds are stored in a partitioned sort of "duck tail" hanging off the back of the turret, with an armored door separating it from the crew compartment, and blast off panels on top.
The specific issue the other comment is referring to is unique to Soviet designed tanks that combined an autoloader with an ammo rack carrousel that's below the crew in the turret. This proved to be a big design flaw, but is not one universal across non Soviet tanks.
The specific issue the other comment is referring to is unique to Soviet designed tanks that combined an autoloader with an ammo rack carrousel that's below the crew in the turret. This proved to be a big design flaw, but is not one universal across non Soviet tanks.
> But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon.
This reads like the gist of it. I imagine them getting lighter, heavier, more sophisticated/expensive, cheaper, slower or faster. But the basic archetype seems to be almost timeless as long as there is some utility for armor, mobility and projectile weapons.
This reads like the gist of it. I imagine them getting lighter, heavier, more sophisticated/expensive, cheaper, slower or faster. But the basic archetype seems to be almost timeless as long as there is some utility for armor, mobility and projectile weapons.
Is there going to be value in projectile weapons in the future? An autonomous quad copter with a grenade attached seems like a much more dangerous weapon than an automatic rifle.
An armored truck may have equivalent ability to defend itself using active systems with much greater mobility and firepower than a tank. A converted autonomous econovan might be even more effective, bypassing the need for defense entirely.
An armored truck may have equivalent ability to defend itself using active systems with much greater mobility and firepower than a tank. A converted autonomous econovan might be even more effective, bypassing the need for defense entirely.
The typical generic tank round is 120 mm and around 50 lbs. This is interestingly mostly the result of the intersection of ergonomics (soldier needs to be able to hurk the round around) and metallurgy/engineering of the barrel. Anyhow, that's a whole lot of pain for any vehicle that's not a peer tank, any sniper/hmg/rpg team set up in a strong point, etc, for a very reasonable price. A good tank crew can fire these at a rate of about one every 10 seconds including overlapping recognition of new targets. This is what tanks are built to do, and it's not equivalent to what drones or man portable smart missiles/munitions can do, as interesting and increasingly novel as those latter are.
> Is there going to be value in projectile weapons in the future
They’re cheap. One of the reasons the Russians use so much conventional artillery is that it’s cheaper than missiles or air strikes.
They’re cheap. One of the reasons the Russians use so much conventional artillery is that it’s cheaper than missiles or air strikes.
Infantry disperse and hide. Tanks really struggle to do either.
https://imgur.com/tk10YHN.jpg
Do you think you would be able to see this tank if it were 3000 meters away?
Because the tank commander, with his set of night vision / thermal vision binoculars sees you.
---------
If that tank commander closes the hatch and ducks down, you wont see him at all. In full hide position, the tank commander will only reveal himself and his tank when a nearby infantry asks for support.
Of course, tank commanders want to see the battlefield for themselves and will stick their heads out like that unless they think there is an eminent danger.
--------
At 3000 meters, you can't hear the tanks, and you can't see them in hide position either. They move around the battlefield at 50km/hr all terrain, so they don't follow roads or well trodden paths either.
And the tank is absolutely lethal at this range in a way that no other weapon is comparable to. Even sniper bullets and rockets are far far slower than tank shells.
Do you think you would be able to see this tank if it were 3000 meters away?
Because the tank commander, with his set of night vision / thermal vision binoculars sees you.
---------
If that tank commander closes the hatch and ducks down, you wont see him at all. In full hide position, the tank commander will only reveal himself and his tank when a nearby infantry asks for support.
Of course, tank commanders want to see the battlefield for themselves and will stick their heads out like that unless they think there is an eminent danger.
--------
At 3000 meters, you can't hear the tanks, and you can't see them in hide position either. They move around the battlefield at 50km/hr all terrain, so they don't follow roads or well trodden paths either.
And the tank is absolutely lethal at this range in a way that no other weapon is comparable to. Even sniper bullets and rockets are far far slower than tank shells.
That tank squadron will have spent 24 hours digging into that position, if the engineer support was even available! An infanteer achieves the same level of concealment much more easily.
Or maybe the tank used its 50km/hr engine *finding* a suitable, natural defilade.
When you're on the attack, you often don't have time to dig in and instead have to make due with the natural terrain. Tanks will reach those natural slopes and enter hide position faster than infantry.
When you're on the attack, you often don't have time to dig in and instead have to make due with the natural terrain. Tanks will reach those natural slopes and enter hide position faster than infantry.
Which is why you screen tanks with infantry.
Not sure what you think a screen is... but it doesn't hide anything. A screen is about finding, not hiding.
Yes, exactly. The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry ATGM groups. Everything that makes enemy infantry with ATGMs more effective tank hunters makes infantry screening the tanks more effective at countering them.
> The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry
Then you mean the infantry screen the enemy infantry from the tanks. You screen the threat, not what you're protecting.
Then you mean the infantry screen the enemy infantry from the tanks. You screen the threat, not what you're protecting.
There is nothing wrong with "The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry". Screening is just the act of keeping two things separated. It does not matter which side of the from they appear. Either way is correct. If you want to go the protection route, "The infantry protect the tanks from enemy infantry" is obviously intended over "The infantry protect the enemy infantry from the tanks".
> There is nothing wrong with "The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry". Screening is just the act of keeping two things separated. It does not matter which side of the from they appear. Either way is correct.
It isn’t! I’m a professional in this field.
You're confusing a screen with a guard or cover force. Different tactical actions.
It isn’t! I’m a professional in this field.
You're confusing a screen with a guard or cover force. Different tactical actions.
> It isn’t!
It is to the average person!
> I’m a professional in this field.
Good for you! Most of us are not professionals in this field and are using average people language. Adjusting to your audience is a thing. If it is wrong in professional speak, just realize you are not likely talking to other professionals and mention that something has a specific meaning in your field. People will just take that tidbit of information.
It is to the average person!
> I’m a professional in this field.
Good for you! Most of us are not professionals in this field and are using average people language. Adjusting to your audience is a thing. If it is wrong in professional speak, just realize you are not likely talking to other professionals and mention that something has a specific meaning in your field. People will just take that tidbit of information.
There's no point in screening the threat where there is nothing to be threatened, so in practice screening moves with the formation.
But in any case, it seems you just want to double down on that fine hnews tradition of utterly valueless semantic quibbling, which I will not participate in further.
But in any case, it seems you just want to double down on that fine hnews tradition of utterly valueless semantic quibbling, which I will not participate in further.
> utterly valueless semantic quibbling
They're technical terms - entirely different tactical actions. You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force.
If you asked someone to screen and really you mean cover or guard, you've fucked up.
They're technical terms - entirely different tactical actions. You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force.
If you asked someone to screen and really you mean cover or guard, you've fucked up.
> They're technical terms - entirely different tactical actions.
Right here! This is so close to what I was talking about. You might refer to the specific field the are technical terms in.
> You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force.
Nah, likely a non-professional.
Right here! This is so close to what I was talking about. You might refer to the specific field the are technical terms in.
> You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force.
Nah, likely a non-professional.
The Abrams A1 got like half a mile to the gallon didn't it? How many miles can they move before you have to park them next to a giant, unarmored gas can?
US armor formations are based around a 12 hour resupply cycle. This is why an armored brigade is not just the tanks and such, it's also all the logistics equipment they need to sustain operations. That said, logistics is a strength of the US military, and something that is a severe challenge in Ukraine atm.
I’ll see if I can find a link, but there’s a small program the army is running for unmanned tanks, and the RCV-M is electric with a diesel genset to charge the batteries, range of ~450 miles I think?
the abrams had a 500 gallon tank, so... pretty far?
Sounds like a pretty big explosive to carry on hand.
Not really. The tanks are outside the armor and just blow up if they get a direct hit. Shockingly enough the people who design gas tanks for tanks thought of the possibility the tank might get shot by something.
TIL that the energy content of 33k gallons of gas is equivalent to a 1 kiloton bomb. I am probably on a list now for trying to figure out the explosive power of a Javelin missile, which I did not find.
It’s ok. They can put it next to the actual explosives.
Right. There were similar discussions about whether the tank has a future after many of them were destroyed in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The main issues were crappy Russian equipment and poor tactics.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/...
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/...
There isnt a silver bullet for every situation and condition, but a moveable metal box that can target heat-emitting targets in its line of sight is useful. As long as its potential is fully utilised like machine assisted target aquisiton and liquidation (ai assisted optics + firing)
Tanks are no match for drones. Anything that slow moving will get taken out and cheaply. Reactive armor is good for one maybe two hits and that’s only a couple of thousand in drones.
This is assuming there wouldn't be a swarm of drones deployed alongside the tanks. Tanks could be used analogously to aircraft carriers, which would be sitting ducks vs jets/subs/battleships, if it weren't for their own jets they're carrying, or the battleships sailing with them.
Aircraft carriers don't have the large cannons of a dreadnought. An armored car that served as launchpad and command center for drones could be drastically lighter, faster, cheaper, and with simpler logistics.
The main gun on a tank is actually a pretty cost effective weapon. Projectile weapons are a lot cheaper than missiles.
Yes this would probably work but that doesn’t seem to be what any major army in the world is doing right now.
An anti tank missile is a "drone" (and has been touted as the end of the tank for the past 50 years or more). Has the much slower-moving propeller driven contraption changed anything significant here?
Way more expendable, can overwhelm with sheer numbers and can be much more reactive than something that has to be aimed and fired from far away.
I mean has it changed the calculus on the battlefield for tanks?
Ukraine are pleading for, and using, mostly anti tank missiles to destroy Russia's tanks, aren't they? Why if swarms of expendable drones are better and cheaper?
Ukraine are pleading for, and using, mostly anti tank missiles to destroy Russia's tanks, aren't they? Why if swarms of expendable drones are better and cheaper?
I think it did pretty decisively in the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
In what way that missiles could not have?
They were extremely cheap, way more maneuverable and can be controlled right up to the moment of impact. A swarm of missiles can’t just hang around for something to happen.
And what did that change for tanks on the battlefield?
[deleted]
One or two hits _in the same spot_.
The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins
The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins
Does infantry have a future, given what WWI taught us about their vulnerability to artillery and machine guns? Do (naval) ships have a future, given what WWII taught us about their vulnerability to torpedoes? Do air defenses or air forces have a future, given what happened in Mole Cricket 19 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 )? Do...
Zzz.
Zzz.
It's clear that this is an exciting topic for techies.
But keep in mind what this all is made for: Destroying and killing. We are talking about war machinery, and technical discussions about those tend to romanticize all that technology much too often.
If we'd only pour 10% of the investments that today goes into war machinery into peace research and conflict prevention, then this world would be a much safer place.
There would be less toys to play with and less "fascinating" discussions about tanks and guided missiles and strategy and artillery and infantry and fighter planes, which may sadden the technically inclined, but in the end these are not toys. These are devices to destroy and kill, and designing, building and maintaining them has enormous costs even in peacetime.
But keep in mind what this all is made for: Destroying and killing. We are talking about war machinery, and technical discussions about those tend to romanticize all that technology much too often.
If we'd only pour 10% of the investments that today goes into war machinery into peace research and conflict prevention, then this world would be a much safer place.
There would be less toys to play with and less "fascinating" discussions about tanks and guided missiles and strategy and artillery and infantry and fighter planes, which may sadden the technically inclined, but in the end these are not toys. These are devices to destroy and kill, and designing, building and maintaining them has enormous costs even in peacetime.
> If we'd only pour 10% of the investments that today goes into war machinery into peace research and conflict prevention, then this world would be a much safer place.
If you get everyone to decide this, yes.
But if you do this and your aggressive neighbor doesn't, your decision to forgo military spending can make the world less safe. Some parts of Europe are remembering this now.
If you get everyone to decide this, yes.
But if you do this and your aggressive neighbor doesn't, your decision to forgo military spending can make the world less safe. Some parts of Europe are remembering this now.
You seem to have missed the "investment into peace research and conflict prevention" part of my post. Ironically, that's the part that you quoted.
Thousands of years of peace research have shown that some conflicts can only be prevented by the peaceful side being better prepared for war.
I'm sure if Ukraine had spent some money on "peace research" in 2013-2021, this whole mess could have been prevented.
/s
Your criticism is itself ironic, since you missed the point of my own comment.
The "we" in your original statement is doing a lot of work.
The "we" in your original statement is doing a lot of work.
oh so another military program. only half kidding
> investment into peace research and conflict prevention
What would this even mean?
What would this even mean?
If you find out why conflicts and wars have broken out in the past, that could enable you to devise strategies to avoid them in the future.
Just like post-mortems in other areas. A plane crashed? Investigators go find out why, amend protocols and technical safeguards so that root cause won't bring down another plane in the future. Too many bad side effects of some drug? Investigation into why and adjustment of recommendations to doctors. You had a prod network meltdown? The responsible team does an ideally blame-free investigation to find the root cause and re-structures their setup to prevent it next time. Fight with your wife? Find out what caused it and then improve communication or expectations or whatever contributed to it. A war broke out? THOSE GUYS ARE EVIL AND WE NEED MORE SPENDING ON WEAPONS!!!1
Since WW2, all those former world-power countries in western Europe have lived in peace with one another, not because they built weapons for mutually assured destruction, but because they built economic interdependence and mutual understanding. That's a start and proper research into this could take things much further.
Just like post-mortems in other areas. A plane crashed? Investigators go find out why, amend protocols and technical safeguards so that root cause won't bring down another plane in the future. Too many bad side effects of some drug? Investigation into why and adjustment of recommendations to doctors. You had a prod network meltdown? The responsible team does an ideally blame-free investigation to find the root cause and re-structures their setup to prevent it next time. Fight with your wife? Find out what caused it and then improve communication or expectations or whatever contributed to it. A war broke out? THOSE GUYS ARE EVIL AND WE NEED MORE SPENDING ON WEAPONS!!!1
Since WW2, all those former world-power countries in western Europe have lived in peace with one another, not because they built weapons for mutually assured destruction, but because they built economic interdependence and mutual understanding. That's a start and proper research into this could take things much further.
> Since WW2, all those former world-power countries in western Europe have lived in peace with one another, not because they built weapons for mutually assured destruction, but because they built economic interdependence and mutual understanding.
Yes, and people thought this would work with Russia too, hence Nordstream and other trade.
Turns out, only more military power would've stopped Putin from invading. Economic interdependence can certainly be a good thing, but it's not all-powerful. Sometimes the answer really is having enough military power to deter your enemies. Democracies generally don't invade other democracies, but not every place is a democracy.
Yes, and people thought this would work with Russia too, hence Nordstream and other trade.
Turns out, only more military power would've stopped Putin from invading. Economic interdependence can certainly be a good thing, but it's not all-powerful. Sometimes the answer really is having enough military power to deter your enemies. Democracies generally don't invade other democracies, but not every place is a democracy.
Investment into things like research of past conflicts to determine optimal policies. E.g. if most conflicts are found to occur from trade issues, you could possibly reduce risk by lobbying the WTO to amend its policies.
You can see what the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs spends their budget on here: https://dppa.un.org/en/funding-documents
You can see what the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs spends their budget on here: https://dppa.un.org/en/funding-documents
The cost would be negligent compared to existing defence costs. World military budgets are on the order of trillions, so even a 1% spend on prevention would get you billions in funding. With that you could fund a research institution with thousands of people, and have billions left over to implement any policies they come up with.
What do you think existing diplomatic and political institutions are, at this point?
There's no diplomacy hack that would've stopped Russia from invading Ukraine, and major projects that people thought would've stopped them -- including major trade infrastructure like Nordstream (2) -- were ineffective.
On the other hand, if Ukraine had been part of NATO, there was no chance Russia would've invaded. Almost like having more military power on their side would be the correct answer.
There's no diplomacy hack that would've stopped Russia from invading Ukraine, and major projects that people thought would've stopped them -- including major trade infrastructure like Nordstream (2) -- were ineffective.
On the other hand, if Ukraine had been part of NATO, there was no chance Russia would've invaded. Almost like having more military power on their side would be the correct answer.
Diplomatic and political institutions are currently designed for communication between polities, their fundamental mission isn't to promote peace unless that is in their national interest (which is most of the time- but not always). The UN now has departments with this task, but my point is they are barely funded. I'm not expecting any silver bullet, I just think having minimal people working on this problem is foolish.
I didn't say anything about stopping the Ukraine War, so I'm not sure how that relates.
I didn't say anything about stopping the Ukraine War, so I'm not sure how that relates.
I decided to look up the figures and it's not pretty...
The "United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs" [prevention] had an income of $81m in 2020 whereas the "United Nations Department of Peace Operations" [mitigation] has a budget of $6.5b. And the UN has a budget of $3t!
To over-simplify a bit:
Cost(prevention) ~ 1% * cost(mitigation)
Cost(prevention) ~ 0.0003% * UN Budget
So essentially the global institution tasked with preventing conflict spends a rounding error of its budget doing so.
The "United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs" [prevention] had an income of $81m in 2020 whereas the "United Nations Department of Peace Operations" [mitigation] has a budget of $6.5b. And the UN has a budget of $3t!
To over-simplify a bit:
Cost(prevention) ~ 1% * cost(mitigation)
Cost(prevention) ~ 0.0003% * UN Budget
So essentially the global institution tasked with preventing conflict spends a rounding error of its budget doing so.
If you look around in the discussions around here, it's not a surprise. Sadly.
The "best thing against bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun" mentality runs deep.
The "best thing against bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun" mentality runs deep.
Tanks are not going anywhere. Especially depending on your definition of "tank". The initial Russian push to Kiev was a disastrous blunder as they ran into unexpected resistance; no one just rolls unsupported tanks into a city they are expecting to have to fight for. But taking (and holding) a city means taking (and holding) the streets, which is impossible for the infantry alone without direct fire and armor support. You will be decimated by sniper and indirect fire otherwise. If anything, this conflict underscores just how crucial armor is to modern warfare. With GPS guided artillery, and omnipresent drone threats, the days of infantrymen defending trench lines in the open are over.
> no one just rolls unsupported tanks into a city they are expecting to have to fight for
An example counterpoint is the Iraq war "Thunder Runs." Of course the US had air superiority, etc, etc. However, sometimes the resistance level cannot be known in ways other than getting out there and seeing if your unit draws fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(2003)#Thund...
An example counterpoint is the Iraq war "Thunder Runs." Of course the US had air superiority, etc, etc. However, sometimes the resistance level cannot be known in ways other than getting out there and seeing if your unit draws fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(2003)#Thund...
> the US had air superiority, etc, etc.
Thunder runs were limited incursions designed to test Iraqi defenses. Beyond air superiority, which is huge, the American tanks also had active defenses and well-trained crew.
Thunder runs were limited incursions designed to test Iraqi defenses. Beyond air superiority, which is huge, the American tanks also had active defenses and well-trained crew.
" With GPS guided artillery, and omnipresent drone threats, the days of infantrymen defending trench lines in the open are over."
But you aware, that there are currently many infantrymen digging and defending trenches in the ukraine? (partly allmost equipped like in WW2)
What little russia has of precisiom ammunition is reserved for more valuable targets, than infantry. They just get shelled by dumb artillery. Lots of it.
But you aware, that there are currently many infantrymen digging and defending trenches in the ukraine? (partly allmost equipped like in WW2)
What little russia has of precisiom ammunition is reserved for more valuable targets, than infantry. They just get shelled by dumb artillery. Lots of it.
Tanks were created to cope with two dominant threats: small arms and artillery shrapnel; the WW1 battlefield of machine guns and massed artillery. They've been improved to cope with some new threats since, but the number of threats are multiplying rapidly. The cost and complexity of tanks is exploding trying to deal with all of militarized model airplanes (Bayraktar et al.), guided artillery rounds (BONUS), long range armor seeking missiles (Brimstone), guided mortar rounds (XM395), intelligent anti-armor mines (PTKM-1R), man portable antitank weapons (Javelin/NLAW/Stugna-P/...), improved RPGs, etc.
In a world where there is a Stugna-P "behind every blade of grass" tanks become a liability. I think they'll be scaled back to niches; there will probably always be a need for a big chunk of metal to push through and blow holes in things. Going forward though, the German Blitzkrieg model or Russia's Horde Of Armor doctrine is dead when the combatants are not greatly asymmetric.
In a world where there is a Stugna-P "behind every blade of grass" tanks become a liability. I think they'll be scaled back to niches; there will probably always be a need for a big chunk of metal to push through and blow holes in things. Going forward though, the German Blitzkrieg model or Russia's Horde Of Armor doctrine is dead when the combatants are not greatly asymmetric.
I think that's a slightly skewed way of looking at it. While there's some nuggets of truth there, the better way to look at a tank is that it provides highly mobile firepower, combined with enough protection to get in there and do it's job. And that job is to support the infantry by, as you stated so well, "blow holes in things" (Quickly, might add!)
But it never was meant to operate on it's own. And when it did, it was either lost in large numbers (Russian tank charges in WWII) or was in all actuality a fluke (Your Blitzkrieg example. See The Chieftan's video on the Battle of France in WWII on why this was such a reckless thing to do, followed by reading on the Battle of The Bulge on why it didn't work a second time.)
Tanks unsupported by infantry are a liability. However, infantry, unsupported by tanks, can be a liability as well when attacking an opponent who's well fortified and/or has heavy weapons. When tanks, infantry, and artillery work together (combined arms theory), then the danger posed by ATGMs and the like is greatly reduced. Armies have been reminded of this numerous times last century, and each time a renewed emphasis on combined arms fixes the balance.
Lastly, and I feel this point is missing in a lot of arguments: ATGMs like Javelin, mines, guided mortars, etc and all but the heaviest drones are defensive and supporting weapons. For ATGMs and RPGs, these weapons exist to prevent infantry from being overrun. (And as the Russians are being reminded, they can be quite good at this.) They are not offensive weapons. That is the reason the tank remains. It's offensive.
But it never was meant to operate on it's own. And when it did, it was either lost in large numbers (Russian tank charges in WWII) or was in all actuality a fluke (Your Blitzkrieg example. See The Chieftan's video on the Battle of France in WWII on why this was such a reckless thing to do, followed by reading on the Battle of The Bulge on why it didn't work a second time.)
Tanks unsupported by infantry are a liability. However, infantry, unsupported by tanks, can be a liability as well when attacking an opponent who's well fortified and/or has heavy weapons. When tanks, infantry, and artillery work together (combined arms theory), then the danger posed by ATGMs and the like is greatly reduced. Armies have been reminded of this numerous times last century, and each time a renewed emphasis on combined arms fixes the balance.
Lastly, and I feel this point is missing in a lot of arguments: ATGMs like Javelin, mines, guided mortars, etc and all but the heaviest drones are defensive and supporting weapons. For ATGMs and RPGs, these weapons exist to prevent infantry from being overrun. (And as the Russians are being reminded, they can be quite good at this.) They are not offensive weapons. That is the reason the tank remains. It's offensive.
> ATGMs like Javelin, mines, guided mortars, etc and all but the heaviest drones are defensive and supporting weapons.
Naturally they're defensive. Tanks are offensive weapons; breakthrough armor, conceived to break WW1 lines. So weapons to defend against tanks have proliferated.
The question is has this proliferation made them obsolete? Can you still effect breakthroughs when a guy with a tube can kill armor from 5+ km away? And if his man portable tank killer can't do the job he can text a missile from 50+ km with a anti-tank precision warhead so big there is no mobile armor system known to man that can withstand it. You can't have a Battle of Kursk when one M270 could theoretically kill a dozen tanks every five to ten minutes.
Naturally they're defensive. Tanks are offensive weapons; breakthrough armor, conceived to break WW1 lines. So weapons to defend against tanks have proliferated.
The question is has this proliferation made them obsolete? Can you still effect breakthroughs when a guy with a tube can kill armor from 5+ km away? And if his man portable tank killer can't do the job he can text a missile from 50+ km with a anti-tank precision warhead so big there is no mobile armor system known to man that can withstand it. You can't have a Battle of Kursk when one M270 could theoretically kill a dozen tanks every five to ten minutes.
New German tank aims to be harder to kill.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a40277518/...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a40277518/...
Here’s an article with no paywall.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/rheinmetall-unveils-new-...
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/rheinmetall-unveils-new-...
For profit, "for export" weapons systems are morally reprehensible.
Without for profit, for export, weapons, smaller entities that cannot support the industrial base to produce the means for their own defense would be at the mercy of any power who could. Self defense is a right, and the means of self defense should be widely available. Ensuring the vulnerability of the weak is morally reprehensible.
I didn't say the weak should remain vulnerable. That is putting words in my mouth. How are the weak going to protect themselves with this German tank, they can't afford it.
If we cared about the weak, we would ensure they aren't harmed. The world isn't interested in that. For profit weapons systems aren't interested in the weak, they are interested in the well funded.
How much conflict has the low cost AK47 (7$ on the world market) enabled?
If we cared about the weak, we would ensure they aren't harmed. The world isn't interested in that. For profit weapons systems aren't interested in the weak, they are interested in the well funded.
How much conflict has the low cost AK47 (7$ on the world market) enabled?
[deleted]
[deleted]
A lot of people are asking whether tanks are survivable anymore, but nobody is asking whether unarmored infantry are any more survivable in the era of small-drone warfare. It's all relative.
Small drone warfare?
The Ukraine / Russian conflict has degenerated into trench warfare with thousands of 155mm / 152mm artillery being shot into each other's positions per day.
These are the kinds of conditions where tanks excel. Humans who try to walk at 3km/hr get blown up by shrapnel, even 100m away is "close enough" to cause a significant injury and take a human out of a fight.
Tanks? They pretty much ignore everything except a direct hit (within 2m) of the target. All that shrapnel just bounces off the tank. We've gone full circle back to WW1 trench/artillery warfare, where tanks were invented to break through the stalemate.
Other vehicles (even armored cars) don't have thick enough armor to survive the shrapnel reliably. APCs, IFVs, Humvees still get shredded by artillery and air-burst munitions.
-------
How do you beat artillery? You travel at 50km/hr, so you're hard to aim (a 20km shot takes 1.5 minutes to land. Easy to kill a human who can only travel a hundred meters in that timeframe, especially since its +/- 100m target size since the shrapnel blast is so huge).
Tanks / vehicles on the other hand, move too fast to be targeted by dumb artillery. Smart artillery still kills you, but its relatively rare on the battlefield (due to the high costs of computer parts needed to make a smart shell). The vast majority of these holes are dumb artillery.
---------
https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/canvas/...
This isn't the landscape of "drone warfare". This is WW1 style dumb-artillery wars.
The Ukraine / Russian conflict has degenerated into trench warfare with thousands of 155mm / 152mm artillery being shot into each other's positions per day.
These are the kinds of conditions where tanks excel. Humans who try to walk at 3km/hr get blown up by shrapnel, even 100m away is "close enough" to cause a significant injury and take a human out of a fight.
Tanks? They pretty much ignore everything except a direct hit (within 2m) of the target. All that shrapnel just bounces off the tank. We've gone full circle back to WW1 trench/artillery warfare, where tanks were invented to break through the stalemate.
Other vehicles (even armored cars) don't have thick enough armor to survive the shrapnel reliably. APCs, IFVs, Humvees still get shredded by artillery and air-burst munitions.
-------
How do you beat artillery? You travel at 50km/hr, so you're hard to aim (a 20km shot takes 1.5 minutes to land. Easy to kill a human who can only travel a hundred meters in that timeframe, especially since its +/- 100m target size since the shrapnel blast is so huge).
Tanks / vehicles on the other hand, move too fast to be targeted by dumb artillery. Smart artillery still kills you, but its relatively rare on the battlefield (due to the high costs of computer parts needed to make a smart shell). The vast majority of these holes are dumb artillery.
---------
https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/canvas/...
This isn't the landscape of "drone warfare". This is WW1 style dumb-artillery wars.
I simplified the argument for brevity, but drones are critical to the artillery war right now because of spotting and fire-correction.
Artillery is far more lethal in 2022 than it was in 1945 because you can spot and kill individual infantry units from ten miles away.
Artillery is far more lethal in 2022 than it was in 1945 because you can spot and kill individual infantry units from ten miles away.
That's just drones serving the role of forward-observer though.
The underlying tactic of someone, or something, out in the field, issuing radio messages back to home-base to coordinate artillery has been around since WW2, maybe earlier. Drones represent an evolution to the forward-observer paradigm, not a revolution.
In WW2, those were paratroopers, commandos, or other scouts who were performing those forward-observer duties while hiding inside of a treeline.
Sure, they were Morse code messages over a radio powered by a 20lb lead-acid battery pack with terrible encryption, but the fundamental tactic hasn't changed (especially because said forward-observer team would rarely be spotted... since they aren't firing their guns they're really hard to find)
The underlying tactic of someone, or something, out in the field, issuing radio messages back to home-base to coordinate artillery has been around since WW2, maybe earlier. Drones represent an evolution to the forward-observer paradigm, not a revolution.
In WW2, those were paratroopers, commandos, or other scouts who were performing those forward-observer duties while hiding inside of a treeline.
Sure, they were Morse code messages over a radio powered by a 20lb lead-acid battery pack with terrible encryption, but the fundamental tactic hasn't changed (especially because said forward-observer team would rarely be spotted... since they aren't firing their guns they're really hard to find)
I think there's a meaningful difference here, and it's very incorrect to consider it an incremental change.
An infantry squad dug into foxholes in some forest in WWII was really quite safe against artillery. A forward observer can maybe spot a tank or artillery battery (sometimes). A drone can scan an entire battlefield and identify infantry 10 miles behind a line of trenches, and coordinated artillery strikes can wipe them out.
That's hugely difference! It vastly changes the lethality per unit of artillery, and the relative risk for infantry units who aren't in obviously-fortified positions.
An infantry squad dug into foxholes in some forest in WWII was really quite safe against artillery. A forward observer can maybe spot a tank or artillery battery (sometimes). A drone can scan an entire battlefield and identify infantry 10 miles behind a line of trenches, and coordinated artillery strikes can wipe them out.
That's hugely difference! It vastly changes the lethality per unit of artillery, and the relative risk for infantry units who aren't in obviously-fortified positions.
ten? i think its closer to 30 miles.
If memory serves me correctly, my brother said the cannon he captained was capable of incredible accuracy at 30 miles.
If memory serves me correctly, my brother said the cannon he captained was capable of incredible accuracy at 30 miles.
Yeah, agreed, NATO gear is. Russia and Ukraine mostly aren't using guided shells right now.
In support of your statement, I'm impressed that Russian doctrine seems to rely so much on good ol' trusty massive artillery, of the dumb kind.
I guess, if it works...
I guess, if it works...
Whenever people talked about "suicide drones", I felt like they haven't studied the history of warfare.
A surprising number of conflicts: WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, degenerated into artillery slugfests. You can't get much cheaper, faster, or more effective than guns shooting dumb explosives 20km away.
Only when the opponents were stupidly overmatched by US Air Superiority (Afghanistan / Iraq) did things change. But even with Air Superiority over say, Vietnam, USA still degenerated into an artillery slugfest.
-------
Its hard to beat 100lb shrapnel bombs delivered 20km away. Logistics wise, trucks carrying shells is just far cheaper than any other delivery mechanism. This fact has been true since WW1, and no technology has ever really changed the calculus. (Adding li-ion batteries, cameras, remote-control and other features so that you can turn the delivery mechanism into a drone is just unnecessary chips in most cases)
A surprising number of conflicts: WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, degenerated into artillery slugfests. You can't get much cheaper, faster, or more effective than guns shooting dumb explosives 20km away.
Only when the opponents were stupidly overmatched by US Air Superiority (Afghanistan / Iraq) did things change. But even with Air Superiority over say, Vietnam, USA still degenerated into an artillery slugfest.
-------
Its hard to beat 100lb shrapnel bombs delivered 20km away. Logistics wise, trucks carrying shells is just far cheaper than any other delivery mechanism. This fact has been true since WW1, and no technology has ever really changed the calculus. (Adding li-ion batteries, cameras, remote-control and other features so that you can turn the delivery mechanism into a drone is just unnecessary chips in most cases)
> But even with Air Superiority over say, Vietnam, USA still degenerated into an artillery slugfest.
I just finished James Holland's Normandy '44 and I'd say, according to his book, that sentence pretty accurately describes pretty much all of the WW2 Normandy campaign as well.
I just finished James Holland's Normandy '44 and I'd say, according to his book, that sentence pretty accurately describes pretty much all of the WW2 Normandy campaign as well.
Said massive artillery fire is directed from the drones. You hear a lot about Ukrainian Bayraktars, but the most mass-deployed combat drone in Ukraine right now is actually Mavic 2 & 3 - on both sides! In fact, it got to the point where there's a shortage of them in Russia because DJI stopped importing them, but units fighting in Ukraine constantly demand and get more via crowdfunding.
(For the curious, here's a blog post from the Donbas separatist side that talks about drones and their combat use and maintenance, among other things: https://kenigtiger.livejournal.com/2140772.html)
However, Ukrainians have learned to embrace the drones in 2014-15 already, and have had a lot more experience with them since. Russia is still learning that lesson in the field.
(For the curious, here's a blog post from the Donbas separatist side that talks about drones and their combat use and maintenance, among other things: https://kenigtiger.livejournal.com/2140772.html)
However, Ukrainians have learned to embrace the drones in 2014-15 already, and have had a lot more experience with them since. Russia is still learning that lesson in the field.
BTW, the same blogger also wrote a post recently that specifically discusses the differences in how Russian and Ukrainian forces employ their artillery. Also worth a read:
https://kenigtiger.livejournal.com/2148946.html
(I would generally recommend this entire blog for those curious about the tactics and the logistics of the conflict, because it's one of those rare cases when a guy who is directly involved in the war, and has a long-standing reputation as one of the prominent hawks, is consistently writing posts that are critical of his own side - which criticism is far more likely to be accurate than propaganda from the other side.)
https://kenigtiger.livejournal.com/2148946.html
(I would generally recommend this entire blog for those curious about the tactics and the logistics of the conflict, because it's one of those rare cases when a guy who is directly involved in the war, and has a long-standing reputation as one of the prominent hawks, is consistently writing posts that are critical of his own side - which criticism is far more likely to be accurate than propaganda from the other side.)
Puts the whole Seoul situation in a new light - there's something about just massive amounts of shells being thrown that's hard to deal with.
And dumb is cheap. Cheap can be king, especially if you can keep making them. The US had the same thing in WWII, the Panzer tanks were better than the Shermans in nearly every way - except cost and repairability.
And dumb is cheap. Cheap can be king, especially if you can keep making them. The US had the same thing in WWII, the Panzer tanks were better than the Shermans in nearly every way - except cost and repairability.
Yes. This is also a lesson the Red Army learned in WWII, and why not continue with it? Simple systems that can be mass produced are better than complex, harder to repair ones.
The complex, hard to repair ones are great if:
1. You're selling them.
2. You have absolute complete superiority and are trying to minimize your casualties
There's a country that fits those parameters very well.
1. You're selling them.
2. You have absolute complete superiority and are trying to minimize your casualties
There's a country that fits those parameters very well.
Both Russian and Ukrainian, also grad rockets. They're pretty much fighting each other with the same weapons.
Infantry can more effectively hide, disperse, and bring down aerial drones.
This is very terrain-dependent.
It worked around Kyiv because it's forested and hilly, it works in cities with large soviet apartment blocks, but isn't working well at all in flat Donbas farmland.
It's also a 100% defensive strategy. Unsupported infantry have almost no ability to retake dug-in positions.
It worked around Kyiv because it's forested and hilly, it works in cities with large soviet apartment blocks, but isn't working well at all in flat Donbas farmland.
It's also a 100% defensive strategy. Unsupported infantry have almost no ability to retake dug-in positions.
The truth is they never were. I think i heard somewhere that avg battlefield lifetime of a tank in ww2 was less than 20 minutes
A lot of money is being invested in anti-drone tech.
This is an excellent question that's asked every five to ten years since 1916 and so far always ends up answered "yes".
Judging by the current situation, it seems that there are more resources for building tanks than there are for building anti-tank weapons. Once the anti-tank weapon stocks have been depleted, tanks still play a devastating role in warfare.
EDIT: I'm just relaying what I read in several articles about the difficulties in making anti-tank weapons because they rely on rare-earth minerals and because they rely on silicon chips, which are in short supply worldwide. Here's one of the articles I read: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/04/26/managing-the-dod-s...
EDIT: I'm just relaying what I read in several articles about the difficulties in making anti-tank weapons because they rely on rare-earth minerals and because they rely on silicon chips, which are in short supply worldwide. Here's one of the articles I read: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/04/26/managing-the-dod-s...
A tank is 15-75 tons of armor, engine, chassis and gun. It costs millions of dollars per tank.
An antitank weapon is 6-120 lbs of propulsion, controller and warhead. It costs between a thousand and tens of thousands of dollars per weapon.
Economics refutes you.
An antitank weapon is 6-120 lbs of propulsion, controller and warhead. It costs between a thousand and tens of thousands of dollars per weapon.
Economics refutes you.
A soldier is tens of thousands of dollars of training and gear. A bullet costs pennies. Thus soldiers have no place on the battlefield?
I think you should watch Chieftains video and read some military theory. Simply being vulnerable to less expensive weapon systems does not make a unit/vehicle/soldier useless or obsolete.
I think you should watch Chieftains video and read some military theory. Simply being vulnerable to less expensive weapon systems does not make a unit/vehicle/soldier useless or obsolete.
Personally - I agree. I don't yet think we're at the point where tanks are obsolete.
That said... I think the niche the tank occupies right now is getting a LOT smaller.
Infantry screening is no longer enough. It's not just manpads and other anti-tank weaponry coming in from close quarters... it's gps guided missiles dropping on the tank from drones miles above.
We're definitely still going to see ground vehicles play an important part in combat, but I strongly suspect it's going to move back towards favoring nimble vehicles with specific utility. Not the current style of armored tanks.
That said... I think the niche the tank occupies right now is getting a LOT smaller.
Infantry screening is no longer enough. It's not just manpads and other anti-tank weaponry coming in from close quarters... it's gps guided missiles dropping on the tank from drones miles above.
We're definitely still going to see ground vehicles play an important part in combat, but I strongly suspect it's going to move back towards favoring nimble vehicles with specific utility. Not the current style of armored tanks.
Indeed, if you value a soldier's life the same as a human's life, you really don't want them on the battlefield any more than absolutely necessary to defend against the invaders.
Spears and catapults and bows make your soldiers effective dozens of yards away from the enemy.
Rifles get your soldiers to a hundred, sometimes two hundred yards away.
Artillery and drones make your soldiers effective up to a few miles away.
The further away you can keep your soldiers while accomplishing your goals, the better.
Spears and catapults and bows make your soldiers effective dozens of yards away from the enemy.
Rifles get your soldiers to a hundred, sometimes two hundred yards away.
Artillery and drones make your soldiers effective up to a few miles away.
The further away you can keep your soldiers while accomplishing your goals, the better.
And yet, using artillery to wipe towns and cities from the map is a no no.
There is a balance here. Sometimes you have to risk the human.
There is a balance here. Sometimes you have to risk the human.
I'm not speaking about cost. I'm talking about the scarcity of the parts and the manufacturing capability required to make anti-tank weapons.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/04/26/managing-the-dod-s...
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/04/26/managing-the-dod-s...
I don't understand this comment.
The anti-tank weaponry is an order of magnitude less expensive than the tank (some is several orders).
The M1A2 Abrams has a unit cost of around 10 million USD (numbers from 2016, so likely higher now).
The drones currently destroying tanks in Ukraine (Bayraktar TB2) had a unit price of around 5 million, although some estimates are as low as 1-2 million per unit delivered to Ukraine at this point (production has ramped up).
notably - the whole drone isn't consumed when a tank is destroyed, so I really suspect we're going to see a drastic ramp up in drone warfare.
The anti-tank weaponry is an order of magnitude less expensive than the tank (some is several orders).
The M1A2 Abrams has a unit cost of around 10 million USD (numbers from 2016, so likely higher now).
The drones currently destroying tanks in Ukraine (Bayraktar TB2) had a unit price of around 5 million, although some estimates are as low as 1-2 million per unit delivered to Ukraine at this point (production has ramped up).
notably - the whole drone isn't consumed when a tank is destroyed, so I really suspect we're going to see a drastic ramp up in drone warfare.
It's the scarcity of the parts, not the overall cost. Javelins require rare-earth minerals (which largely come from Russia) and rare silicon chips that are in short supply worldwide. I edited my original post to include a link to an article about the difficulties in replacing the diminishing stock of anti-tank weapons.
Modern tanks also use minerals and chips, they're basically armoured computers. They also, obviously, take a huge amount of resources to produce, transport and train to use.
That's the expensive drones. But there are plenty of kills attributed to octocopters dropping modified anti-tank grenades.
Tanks can also destroy more stuff than they cost.
You could say it the other way around - once the tank stocks are depleted, anti-tank weapons can still play a devastating role (against other armored or unarmored vehicles).
You could say it the other way around, but the complexity of the electronics in the anti-tank weapons have proven to be difficult to produce in large quantities because of the chip shortage, but also because of the high level of experience and knowledge required to continue to make them. Tanks are much less reliant on complex electronics and manufacturing capability in order to be effective on the battlefield.
The US Defense Dept. has said it will take at least ten years to rebuild the stock of anti-tank weapons that have been used in Ukraine in the last five months.
The US Defense Dept. has said it will take at least ten years to rebuild the stock of anti-tank weapons that have been used in Ukraine in the last five months.
> Tanks are much less reliant on complex electronics and manufacturing capability in order to be effective on the battlefield.
I don't disagree with your overall comment, but note the modern main battle tank is a really complex beast, both in sensors, gun control, and also defensive systems. Even Russian tanks are very complex (their current high losses notwithstanding), but Western tanks are incredibly complex. They are not meant to sustain heavy losses, they are designed to survive.
If modern weapons strongly reduce the survivability of tanks, at least the future of Western tanks may be in question.
I don't disagree with your overall comment, but note the modern main battle tank is a really complex beast, both in sensors, gun control, and also defensive systems. Even Russian tanks are very complex (their current high losses notwithstanding), but Western tanks are incredibly complex. They are not meant to sustain heavy losses, they are designed to survive.
If modern weapons strongly reduce the survivability of tanks, at least the future of Western tanks may be in question.
How many years will it take to replace the 700 or so tanks lost in Ukraine? Russia is estimated to have 3,000 or so tanks currently operating, they are closing in on losing 1/4th their number. It’s unclear how many of their roughly 10k in storage are still working and whether making new tanks or repairing those will have the same chip shortage problems.
The ones in storage are like t-62s so no chips required =)
There is absolutely no chance Russia lost 700 tanks. Ukrainian sources are pure garbage.
Ukrainian sources put the number lost at nearly double that last time I checked. I am using a number from oryx, who claims to have counted tanks out of commission or being towed from photographs taken in front lines or publicly released arial photography and de-duping them, as they have done for other conflicts like the war in Afghanistan. They actually have the count now at
Tanks 774 (of which destroyed: 438, damaged: 21, abandoned: 53, captured: 262), and host all the images used to make their count. I’m sure there are problems with this approach but it seems like the closest thing to an unbiased estimate available to the public right now.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
> The US Defense Dept. has said it will take at least ten years to rebuild the stock of anti-tank weapons that have been used in Ukraine in the last five months.
Reponding to this and some of your other comments elsewhere... These anti-tank weapons may be the best anti-tank weapons, but they're not the only ones. If all of these are used, there are plenty of other ways to destroy tanks, so it's important, but not required to have a large stock of them.
You could probably increase the rate of manufacture of these, but there's also value in having ten continuous years of manufacturing instead of long time periods between batches.
I may be overly cynical, but in some ways, this war seems like a warehouse clearance event. It seems like everyone is finding their old stockpiles of Soviet era equipment and sending it to Ukraine to be used and/or destroyed. And presumably afterwards, it'll be time for the military industrial complexes to turn back on and build new stockpiles. Add in a few field demos of new equipment too.
Reponding to this and some of your other comments elsewhere... These anti-tank weapons may be the best anti-tank weapons, but they're not the only ones. If all of these are used, there are plenty of other ways to destroy tanks, so it's important, but not required to have a large stock of them.
You could probably increase the rate of manufacture of these, but there's also value in having ten continuous years of manufacturing instead of long time periods between batches.
I may be overly cynical, but in some ways, this war seems like a warehouse clearance event. It seems like everyone is finding their old stockpiles of Soviet era equipment and sending it to Ukraine to be used and/or destroyed. And presumably afterwards, it'll be time for the military industrial complexes to turn back on and build new stockpiles. Add in a few field demos of new equipment too.
That’s probably because anti-tank weapons aren’t all that important for the US military. The US military has guided missiles from planes and ships that serve this role much more effectively.
If we actually needed infantry anti-tank weapons, I don’t think we have any problem building them in huge quantities.
If we actually needed infantry anti-tank weapons, I don’t think we have any problem building them in huge quantities.
I think the shortage is mostly due to a lack of a desire to make big changes to resolve the issue.
If a meeting was called of 10 big tech/manufacturing companies and they were each told they'd be hansomely rewarded if they managed to make large volumes of a missile design, and that all IP/Patent laws would be suspended for the purpose, I guarantee you that there would be massive stockpiles within the month.
If a meeting was called of 10 big tech/manufacturing companies and they were each told they'd be hansomely rewarded if they managed to make large volumes of a missile design, and that all IP/Patent laws would be suspended for the purpose, I guarantee you that there would be massive stockpiles within the month.
We have no idea what a major economy like the current US would look like if it went on a real war footing. According to this [34] we spent 40% of GDP on WWII (equivalent of $5 trillion today) - that would be almost $10 trillion a year now if we did the equivalent. That's absolutely insane numbers, and many, many things would change, and quite quickly.
[34] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/february/war-...
[34] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/february/war-...
Yeah, no. This defies credulity. Tanks are complex systems too, with very high cost and long lead times. Javelin production is currently 2,100 per year and ramping up. I don’t know what NLAW production is, but some 24,000 have supposedly been produced in the lifetime of the weapon. Russia started the war with about 3,000 tanks.
When was the last time the US even produced a new tank hull? Pretty sure they haven't produced a new Abrams hull since the 80s (yes, they've been rebuilt and upgraded a few times, but no new hulls to my knowledge). I'm not even talking about a new design, I'm talking about production of an existing design.
Have you watched any of the Ukraine footage? Tanks are being blown up from bombs dropped from COTS drones. Longer range semi-autonomous drones seem to be the future.
I agree tanks seem to be very vulnerable in the current Ukraine war.
That said, drones cannot replace tanks. Maybe something else will, but drones cannot make breakthrough advances, nor accompany and shield advancing infantry. Drones may be cheap tank killers, but I don't think they can replace tanks.
That said, drones cannot replace tanks. Maybe something else will, but drones cannot make breakthrough advances, nor accompany and shield advancing infantry. Drones may be cheap tank killers, but I don't think they can replace tanks.
Not every weapon system has a direct and obvious replacement when it becomes obsolete - the nature of the combat itself changes around what's viable given the tech.
Agreed. I meant the role of tanks cannot be fulfilled by drones, and therefore they cannot be a replacement. The tech is irrelevant, the role is relevant.
Even an evolution of the tank's role, because all roles change, will not be fulfilled by drones.
Even an evolution of the tank's role, because all roles change, will not be fulfilled by drones.
Much of this has to do with Russian tank doctrine and the lack of sufficient infantry to provide mutual support to armor.
How well do long range drones work if the other side puts up a serious blockages of radio waves and decides that "no you dont get satellites anymore"?
Tanks also rely on silicon chips. Many more than in an anti-tank weapon.
Fantastic visuals accompanying the article!
They're slick but not terribly accurate. For example, the top-attack angle for the Javelin is depicted as far more vertical than it actually is. It's actually only about 50 degrees, which means it doesn't perform as much better than the NLAW as the specs would suggest thanks to the NLAW's 90 degree top attack.
It's an article meant for the general public. I think the visuals demonstrate the "it comes from above" nature of it quite well enough.
It seems like the future of warfare is longe range (eg: firing missiles at tanks from across the horizon) or hyper short range (eg: troops clearing cities block by block) — anything else seems like it'll get wrecked by either the precision of long range or the precision of short range stuff.
A tank isn't hyper mobile, isn't hyper accurate and isn't hyper long range. I don't get it's role — especially when it costs tens of millions and can be destroyed with either a $5k anti-armor launcher or from a missile fired across the horizon.
A tank isn't hyper mobile, isn't hyper accurate and isn't hyper long range. I don't get it's role — especially when it costs tens of millions and can be destroyed with either a $5k anti-armor launcher or from a missile fired across the horizon.
A tank is certainly more useful in the middle distance than at extreme range, or in tight spaces, there’s better choices of tool for those jobs guided artillery/rockets at distance and heavy auto-cannon clad infantry fighting vehicles like in the city. But not all warfare exists in either of those ranges.
Tanks are great at assaulting enemy hard points, taking fire away from supporting infantry who can move in and cleanup the position after the tank has suppressed it or broken it open. It’s a heavy weapon of mobility and manoeuvre on the field.
A tank’s role is that of heavy cavalry, designed to intimidate and break defensive lines in a charge across contested territory and to provide immediate direct fire on a target in support of advancing infantry. As the modern rifleman company is the descendant of line infantry of old, the tank is the descendant of the Cuirassier.
Tanks are great at assaulting enemy hard points, taking fire away from supporting infantry who can move in and cleanup the position after the tank has suppressed it or broken it open. It’s a heavy weapon of mobility and manoeuvre on the field.
A tank’s role is that of heavy cavalry, designed to intimidate and break defensive lines in a charge across contested territory and to provide immediate direct fire on a target in support of advancing infantry. As the modern rifleman company is the descendant of line infantry of old, the tank is the descendant of the Cuirassier.
Long range missiles are expensive. ATGMs require you to be closer (2 miles or less) to the target which means the operating crews are vulnerable to the same tanks and other mortar fire which they are trying to kill.
I think long range artillery (> 50kms) is the solution.
I think long range artillery (> 50kms) is the solution.
There's also drones to consider.
Yes, it's still valuable to be able to move a heavily armored computer onto the battlefield, even if you need to be more cautious about exposing it to direct fire now.
They're cheaper and making them quite so heavily armored is less important if there are no humans in them, too. That's a whole different can of worms when the calculus changes from blood and treasure to just treasure though, especially if only on one side.
Russian tanks aren't a representative of a modern tank as among other things they have crappy active defense - it is all about electronics. Israel's is a good one, and their tanks survive multiple shots by actively killing incoming RPG warheads and the likes.
Also Russian tanks are on the light side as they can't manage a powerful enough engine required, ie gas turbine of 1500hp+. The best they have so far managed is 1000hp diesel on may be 200 tanks by now, the rest is old one 800hp. Thus their tanks have armor lighter and of older type than say Abrams.
And there is huge area of discussion about integration of all weapons on the battlefield - without such integration any weapon loses its efficiency tremendously - and Russian military is very bad at integration, and tanks in isolation are much weaker target as opponent much easily finds the window opportunity.
Also Russian tanks are on the light side as they can't manage a powerful enough engine required, ie gas turbine of 1500hp+. The best they have so far managed is 1000hp diesel on may be 200 tanks by now, the rest is old one 800hp. Thus their tanks have armor lighter and of older type than say Abrams.
And there is huge area of discussion about integration of all weapons on the battlefield - without such integration any weapon loses its efficiency tremendously - and Russian military is very bad at integration, and tanks in isolation are much weaker target as opponent much easily finds the window opportunity.
Have Israeli tanks ever faced Javelins tho?
Not a direct answer, but an advantage of Israeli armour is that they only need to deploy locally. This means less penalty for armour than US systems which are designed to be carried in air transports for foreign deployment, or Russian units designed around train transport. The Israeli Namer IFV weighs more than twice as much as a Bradley IFV, and can carry more troops.
They have faced formidable ATGMs including Kornet E, and have suffered losses. Time will tell how effective their hard-kill countermeasures will prove to be.
Javelin is on a higher end. A most advanced Russian tank - T-90M - available in the army (while T-14 "Armata" is supposed to be more advanced it isn't available in the army really) was taken out by a side hit from a much lighter/simpler/cheaper "Carl-Gustaf" which a good modern active protection system should be able to shoot down relatively easy.
The USMC got rid of their tanks. The closest thing to a tank they still have is a Light Armored Vehicle.
The USMC decided it's going to fight a different kind of fight, being dropped off on small Pacific islands with antiship missiles and artillery to produce a set of distributed antiship bunkers. Their divestment of the tank is not because they thought the tank is obsolete, but because the tank doesn't fit with the fight they're planning for. Most armies, including the US's, still plan to have fights where tanks make sense. Of course the question of whether or not those kinds of fights are likely to happen is a valid question, but is orthogonal to the question of whether or not drones and ATGMs make tanks obsolete
They got rid of their tanks because the Army will provide them. It says so in the 2030 doctrine document.
How is that so hard to understand?
How is that so hard to understand?
And some people in the USMC hotly debate if this was a good idea or not
I am still waiting for when we get individual tank like things or tank suits. Lots of SciFi and Anime has talked about it for years but I feel like there has to be some efficient middleground between a bunch of dudes in a modern tank vs just running around as infantry with body armor. I am not necessarily talking about an Iron Man like thing - just something much more nimble.
A comically silly question. I bet 99% of HN has played a game with Class called or refered to as "tank." Its not a matter of do tanks have a future just what the format will be. Even in a made up fantasy games the concept of a military unit with heavy armoring is always going to have a place. Same as real life.
fantasy worlds rarely have an equivalent of a 'rods from god' type weapon.
the future of warfare , according to most of the RAND papers i've read, is in cheap/commodity available 'nodes' , part of a 'system of systems' that can all interconnect cheaply and provide good data without being valuable assets themselves.
in a future where any group can destroy any one thing quickly and without hopes of defense (hypersonic missiles, for example) it becomes increasingly more risky and less valuable to shove a lot of effort and value into a single strong piece of equipment -- 'distributed warfare' is going to become increasingly common, and it's one of the few strategies that remains viable in a future without sufficient anti-air defenses.
the future of warfare , according to most of the RAND papers i've read, is in cheap/commodity available 'nodes' , part of a 'system of systems' that can all interconnect cheaply and provide good data without being valuable assets themselves.
in a future where any group can destroy any one thing quickly and without hopes of defense (hypersonic missiles, for example) it becomes increasingly more risky and less valuable to shove a lot of effort and value into a single strong piece of equipment -- 'distributed warfare' is going to become increasingly common, and it's one of the few strategies that remains viable in a future without sufficient anti-air defenses.
>fantasy worlds rarely have an equivalent of a 'rods from god' type weapon.
I don't have a compendium of every game ever but they usually throw some OP weapon in. Doesn't invalidate the tanks. There is not in the game or real life an infinite supply of the god rod. On a side note I'm surprised there is no weapon called the god rod yet.
Heavy armor will always have a place in battle. What happens when someone makes a slightly better armored swarm and you have to make a more armored swarm to take out their more armored swarm? Yep, escalation leads to escalation and eventually you end up with a......tank. Then you use the god rod to take out the tank and start over again. Battle is not a fixed state.
I don't have a compendium of every game ever but they usually throw some OP weapon in. Doesn't invalidate the tanks. There is not in the game or real life an infinite supply of the god rod. On a side note I'm surprised there is no weapon called the god rod yet.
Heavy armor will always have a place in battle. What happens when someone makes a slightly better armored swarm and you have to make a more armored swarm to take out their more armored swarm? Yep, escalation leads to escalation and eventually you end up with a......tank. Then you use the god rod to take out the tank and start over again. Battle is not a fixed state.
[deleted]
There are small robotic “wingman” tanks under development right now. Crewed tanks will be fielded with robotic escorts in the future.
The tone of the article is a little hard to take seriously given that the legacy media are mostly now admitting that a Ukrainian surrender is necessary and that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met.
The more interesting question is if having the US as a credible security partner has a future.
The more interesting question is if having the US as a credible security partner has a future.
If the US is not a "credible security partner" then what the media thinks about a Ukrainian surrender is utterly irrelevant. Even if is is a credible security partner, the same is true.
It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you flip from a picture of the US as a totalitarian monolith with tentacles controlling everything, to the US as an utterly impotent former empire in shambles, unable to even be a "partner", within two sentences.
It's kind of an echo of the way Russia has been portrayed in the last few years.
It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you flip from a picture of the US as a totalitarian monolith with tentacles controlling everything, to the US as an utterly impotent former empire in shambles, unable to even be a "partner", within two sentences.
It's kind of an echo of the way Russia has been portrayed in the last few years.
It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you conclude anything I wrote means the US is a totalitarian monolith.
It's only two sentences, so I assumed neither of them were fluff...I interpreted "the legacy media" being mentioned adjacent to your personifying the US as someone carrying out foreign policy as implying they are closely related.
If you didn't mean it that way, ok, but I think it's a common view and common to express it like this.
If the media is an arm of the establishment, the rulers of the country, with a singular purpose of supporting it regardless of policy changes, that is what I'd call a totalitarian monolith.
Now if you don't view things that way, fine, but it seems like maybe half of the politically aware US public is more or less on board with that worldview, except that they identify the "monolith" with the left.
Literally every day recently, I hear, on the radio that is always playing in a convenience store I go to, an ad for a famous person's new show on Newsmax, that is somehow rebelling against (I forget the exact phrase) major media outlets. I guess the phrase "mainstream media" is tired, but the concept seems to remain.
The baseline here is the assumption that there is no free press, that there is no diversity of opinion, and I see that sort of claim made everywhere, every day. By, you know, the brave dissenters.
I wonder if it's so ubiquitous that you have stopped seeing it as a background?
If you didn't mean it that way, ok, but I think it's a common view and common to express it like this.
If the media is an arm of the establishment, the rulers of the country, with a singular purpose of supporting it regardless of policy changes, that is what I'd call a totalitarian monolith.
Now if you don't view things that way, fine, but it seems like maybe half of the politically aware US public is more or less on board with that worldview, except that they identify the "monolith" with the left.
Literally every day recently, I hear, on the radio that is always playing in a convenience store I go to, an ad for a famous person's new show on Newsmax, that is somehow rebelling against (I forget the exact phrase) major media outlets. I guess the phrase "mainstream media" is tired, but the concept seems to remain.
The baseline here is the assumption that there is no free press, that there is no diversity of opinion, and I see that sort of claim made everywhere, every day. By, you know, the brave dissenters.
I wonder if it's so ubiquitous that you have stopped seeing it as a background?
> that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met
Their objective was to overthrow Ukrainian goverment and take half a country. So no, their objectives definietly will not be met.
Their objective was to overthrow Ukrainian goverment and take half a country. So no, their objectives definietly will not be met.
Their territorial objectives have apparently been redefined to encompass the areas that they already de facto possessed since 2014.
Isn't that true?
The only obvious thing accomplished lately is all the death and destruction. It can't have been planned this way.
Isn't that true?
The only obvious thing accomplished lately is all the death and destruction. It can't have been planned this way.
I never understood why the tank tracks weren't targeted.
They look easy to immobilize.
They look easy to immobilize.
Why do you think tank tracks aren't targeted? Unless you can directly pen/destroy a tank in one shot, in which case why would you not do that, "tracking" a tank is a common tactic to make it combat ineffective.
That entire article was about attacking the tank everywhere but the tracks.
I believe that tank tracks break frequently and the tank will carry the spare parts required to make a repair.
Also if you look at a tank it's basically a shell around the treads - you have to hit it directly on the side or a small opening on the front, both of which may not disable the tread.
That's a tactic used where immobilising makes a kill attack easier.
But you still ultimately want to take out the tank (and crew, and munitions) itself. And that requires defeating the armour.
But you still ultimately want to take out the tank (and crew, and munitions) itself. And that requires defeating the armour.
They're relatively easily replaced and repaired.
this just makes the machine immobile it doesn't lessen its lethality. Also those tracks are pretty dang well designed as they have used across both military and industrial applications for a long time now.
Tanks Considered Harmful?
I expected this to be about Shark Tank somehow.
Lost in the discussion is the idea that the tank should not have a future, and neither should most weapons of war, because they are brutal inhumane killing machines from a past era that have no place in future societies - this is my view as a pacifist. My hope is that humans can move past the idea of war for settling conflict, otherwise what is the point of social norms like privacy, respect, and courtesy between people, when the same people in society can condone killing of their youth in war? In my view tanks are are a tool of war against the progress of society and I don't see that changing in the future.
It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it.
Javelin missiles are just one thing, but cheap drones with simple rockets on them should be able to take out a moving force of numerous tanks.
Imagine having an arsenal of 20 tanks storming your city.
Now imagine having about 100 drones ordered from Amazon, outfitted with RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. One each. You can fly low, you can fly through the woods, and you can fly each individually operated drone right up to the top part of a tank, and boom.
No clever software automation. Just a drone that can lift something like 1 kg worth of anti-tank grenade.
You have 20 drone operators. You'll have 5 drones per tank. One after the other. Skip the already defeated tanks. Attack the tanks that will create a barrier when destroyed first, take natural barriers into account.
Your tanks can have all the power and shock and awe you might think they have, but any 12-year old will be able to take you out as if they were playing a video game.
Javelin missiles are just one thing, but cheap drones with simple rockets on them should be able to take out a moving force of numerous tanks.
Imagine having an arsenal of 20 tanks storming your city.
Now imagine having about 100 drones ordered from Amazon, outfitted with RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. One each. You can fly low, you can fly through the woods, and you can fly each individually operated drone right up to the top part of a tank, and boom.
No clever software automation. Just a drone that can lift something like 1 kg worth of anti-tank grenade.
You have 20 drone operators. You'll have 5 drones per tank. One after the other. Skip the already defeated tanks. Attack the tanks that will create a barrier when destroyed first, take natural barriers into account.
Your tanks can have all the power and shock and awe you might think they have, but any 12-year old will be able to take you out as if they were playing a video game.
I think every half way capable military on the planet is seeing the news and videos coming out of Ukraine and thinking, hmm, must invest in anti-drone technology.
A decade from now what's happening in Ukraine won't work against most major military powers. The drones we're seeing are very slow and very low but modern anti-aircraft systems aren't optimised to detect things this small and low so are getting away mostly untouched, but there's no significant technological hurdle against modifying existing systems or developing new ones that work against this type of threat.
A decade from now what's happening in Ukraine won't work against most major military powers. The drones we're seeing are very slow and very low but modern anti-aircraft systems aren't optimised to detect things this small and low so are getting away mostly untouched, but there's no significant technological hurdle against modifying existing systems or developing new ones that work against this type of threat.
>It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it.
This has been a fact of warfare for almost a century. in fact it was so easy the US Government published a warfighter training video on how to do it, and it didnt even fill 15 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM
Tanks had shock and awe value in nineteen sixteen. for the first time on the battlefields you had an imposing, lumbering, seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of forged iron that if left to its means, could obliterate hard targets like buildings and bunkers without much effort and keep advancing seemingly endlessly. if you could reason to stop them, the thought was perished by the overwhelming terror alone they imposed.
by WWII most antitank technology had reached horrors unimaginable; being a tanker was objectively near suicide. the swedish bofors sabot rounds could not only pierce most german armor, but cook the occupants alive with a shower of boiling steel before they invariably detonated the ordinance on board. even smaller mines like the TM41 were enough to blow the road wheels through the driver and out the hatch. And if all that proves too technical, the Japanese tactic in WW2 was to simply hose tanks in petrol and light them ablaze.
the only shock and awe of a 21st century tank is watching your tax dollars propel something with 0.6mpg
This has been a fact of warfare for almost a century. in fact it was so easy the US Government published a warfighter training video on how to do it, and it didnt even fill 15 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM
Tanks had shock and awe value in nineteen sixteen. for the first time on the battlefields you had an imposing, lumbering, seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of forged iron that if left to its means, could obliterate hard targets like buildings and bunkers without much effort and keep advancing seemingly endlessly. if you could reason to stop them, the thought was perished by the overwhelming terror alone they imposed.
by WWII most antitank technology had reached horrors unimaginable; being a tanker was objectively near suicide. the swedish bofors sabot rounds could not only pierce most german armor, but cook the occupants alive with a shower of boiling steel before they invariably detonated the ordinance on board. even smaller mines like the TM41 were enough to blow the road wheels through the driver and out the hatch. And if all that proves too technical, the Japanese tactic in WW2 was to simply hose tanks in petrol and light them ablaze.
the only shock and awe of a 21st century tank is watching your tax dollars propel something with 0.6mpg
Because solo tanks storming a city isn’t what tanks are for.
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
edit: for example, I would not want to be a drone operator controlling a drone in real time anywhere near a modern army. RF direction finders are a thing.
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
edit: for example, I would not want to be a drone operator controlling a drone in real time anywhere near a modern army. RF direction finders are a thing.
Your broader point might be correct but an anti tank grenade would not be likely to knock out a modern tank.
Either you're kidding, or you're really ignoring the fact that "the enemy" will pursue the same? I'm slowly losing trust in humanity (ok, I'ma slow learner).
While it is possible that drones and modern ATGM teams could effectively counter traditional combined arms operations, the evidence from the war in Ukraine is largely inconclusive at this time. If Russia were to correct their manpower issues, or at least be able to conduct traditional combined arms offensives in certain areas, then we'd have more solid evidence. Notably Ukraine still sees value in the tank, since they've been repeatedly requesting tanks (along with a variety of equipment) from the West.
Personally, I think we'll see an adjustment to the balance of military forces, but the tank will continue to play a pivotal role. Active protection systems will continue to improve, we'll see the expansion of short range air defenses and doctrine to counter drones (and even longer-ranged ATGMs), increased teaming of drones alongside infantry and armor (in doctrine acting as a sort of middle ground between artillery and air power), and the usage of novel indirect fires for tanks like the KSTAM.