Ukraine Has Destroyed Nearly 10% of Russia's Tanks, Making Experts Ask: Are Tanks Over? (businessinsider.com) 429
In three weeks of fighting, Russia has lost at least 270 tanks, according to the open source weapons tracking site Oryx -- almost 10% of its estimated active force. From a report: Ukraine's defense is proving so effective, in fact, that many analysts are attributing the failure of Russia's offense not only to its commanders, or to its tanks, but to the very idea of the tank itself, as a front-line weapon platform that can gain ground. The emerging evidence of tanks' tactical weakness is "striking," as one expert put it, and it has opened up a debate about whether tanks might be on their way to joining chariots and mounted cavalry in the boneyard of military history.
Cheap, low-flying drones are striking tanks from above. Soldiers are using charred suburban landscape to ambush tanks with a new generation of fire-and-forget weapons that makes tank-killing unsettlingly simple, even in the hands of a volunteer. "An infantry that is determined to fight is now super-empowered by having things like a huge number of point-and-shoot disposable anti-tank rockets," Edward Luttwak, a military strategist who consults for governments around the world, told Insider. Tanks have ruled land warfare for more than 80 years. It's their job to punch through enemy positions so infantry can flood in and hold the newly gained ground. Tanks have long been susceptible to soldier-carried weapons like bazookas and recoilless rifles, as well as improvised explosives such as the anti-tank "sticky bombs" seen in the film "Saving Private Ryan."
But looking at the ineffectiveness of Russian tank attacks in Ukraine, one can see how technology -- particularly advances in high explosives and guided missiles -- is further tipping the odds to favor anti-tank defenders, to the point where tanks could arguably be rendered obsolete. One defense analyst who spoke with Insider compared the role of tanks to that of the Swiss pikemen, Renaissance-era fighters armed with pikes and halberd who once were an army's frontlines. This vanguard role, held then by foot soldiers and now by tanks, will likely shift to drones, robotic vehicles, and long-range strike systems. "Tanks are going to move, over time, into more of a mopping-up role," said Paul Scharre, a former US Army Ranger and a director of studies at the Center for a New American Security.
Cheap, low-flying drones are striking tanks from above. Soldiers are using charred suburban landscape to ambush tanks with a new generation of fire-and-forget weapons that makes tank-killing unsettlingly simple, even in the hands of a volunteer. "An infantry that is determined to fight is now super-empowered by having things like a huge number of point-and-shoot disposable anti-tank rockets," Edward Luttwak, a military strategist who consults for governments around the world, told Insider. Tanks have ruled land warfare for more than 80 years. It's their job to punch through enemy positions so infantry can flood in and hold the newly gained ground. Tanks have long been susceptible to soldier-carried weapons like bazookas and recoilless rifles, as well as improvised explosives such as the anti-tank "sticky bombs" seen in the film "Saving Private Ryan."
But looking at the ineffectiveness of Russian tank attacks in Ukraine, one can see how technology -- particularly advances in high explosives and guided missiles -- is further tipping the odds to favor anti-tank defenders, to the point where tanks could arguably be rendered obsolete. One defense analyst who spoke with Insider compared the role of tanks to that of the Swiss pikemen, Renaissance-era fighters armed with pikes and halberd who once were an army's frontlines. This vanguard role, held then by foot soldiers and now by tanks, will likely shift to drones, robotic vehicles, and long-range strike systems. "Tanks are going to move, over time, into more of a mopping-up role," said Paul Scharre, a former US Army Ranger and a director of studies at the Center for a New American Security.
Answer: No, but. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but they are if you use them as stupidly as Russia is doing.
Tanks that are unsupported by competent infantry when fighting in infantry-friendly battle environments are going to get eaten alive.
Used more intelligently they are still very effective mobile weapons.
We'll probably see a lot of new effort and resources poured into active defense systems to defend against ATGMs, though. That will become the technological arms race in armor combat.
Re: (Score:2)
Some modern tanks already have anti-missile defense systems.
The real answer is that you need effective combined arms operations. If your infantry and tanks are not working together effectively, then you will take horrible losses to an opponent who does use them effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll probably see a lot of new effort and resources poured into active defense systems to defend against ATGMs, though. That will become the technological arms race in armor combat.
Well, sure. Just add some sentient AI, make them 20x larger, mount some Hellbores, ablative armor and tonnes of point-defense weaponry and they'll be perfectly ready to heroically sacrifice themselves time and time again after inevitable human betrayal.
I, for one, welcome our incoming Bolo overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
One interesting thing that came out of this is that reactive armor is not a good thing if you have your support infantry close at hand; I saw a missile hit a tank, and completely take out the infantry.
Sucks to be them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Tanks that are unsupported by competent infantry when fighting in infantry-friendly battle environments are going to get eaten alive.
Are you proposing to have a 5km radius around each tank completely saturated with infantry, so that ATGM operators have no place to shoot from? If you could capture 80 sqkm without the tank, you probably dont need the tank.
I dont know exactly what you think infantry can do. Perhaps you dont seem to realize we arent talking enemy infantry coating tanks in molotovs, attachi
Re: (Score:2)
That is not at all what we're talking. Ukraine is not having success with 5+ km range man portable ATGM's. They have success with AT4's and NLAW's. Their drones are tiny and cheap, and while fairly high up, are also easy to detect and take out. That Russian forces fail to counter these very simple platforms is a sign of lack of co-ordination and training. Modern infantry has tools to combat all of these threats.
Something like a Phalanx CIWS (Score:2)
No, but they are if you use them as stupidly as Russia is doing. Tanks that are unsupported by competent infantry when fighting in infantry-friendly battle environments are going to get eaten alive. Used more intelligently they are still very effective mobile weapons. We'll probably see a lot of new effort and resources poured into active defense systems to defend against ATGMs, though. That will become the technological arms race in armor combat.
Anti-aircraft armored vehicles will get updated. Maybe replace the array of heavy MG, or missiles, with something like a Phalanx CIWS. With a miniaturized "Phalanx" each tank could get one.
There is really nothing new here. Its just the never ending back and forth of armor and anti-armor. But yeah, there is one constant. Infantry and armor must work together.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't want the tanks pulling over to ask for directions. All the Russian failures seem to come down to the idea that this was going to be a pushover, that the local Russian speakers would welcome the liberators with open arms, and the non-Russian speakers would surrender and accept Putin as their lord and savior.
Another failure to plan properly, is that too many of the tanks got stuck in the mud. Exactly the same way that German Panzer tanks got stuck in the mud in WWII on the way to Moscow. You w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you use the tanks and infantry together to "clear out people"?
Short answer, infantry go in first. They confront opposing forces and either destroy them or force them to retreat. They clear out the terrain for tanks which stay further back, out of range of AT weapons but provide supporting fire. And don' forget artillery. Artillery can suppress anything in its range.
In the old days it was artillery barges followed by infantry charges. Then artillery and attacks by planes. Modern attacks are usua
Re: (Score:2)
At which point the article's question returns. Why then would you need such a heavy piece of equipment like a tank if you need long range support that can be provided from a much lighter vehicle?
Simply put, modern anti-armor weaponry outpaced armor technology. Since the beginning of the war I have seen several discussions about this very subject and the argument for modern tanks boils down to "They win if the enemy doenst have NLAWs". But since every modern army has them, and every rag-tag group of guerilla
Re: (Score:2)
WWII anti-armor technology outpaced armor technology. The difference is, people then adapted their tactics and training, and heavy armor has strengths which infantry and light vehicles does not have.
The argument for modern tanks boil down to, they win if used properly. And using them against guerilla fighters is not using them properly to begin with. Tanks are for rapidly taking terrain in pursuit of a territory objective, and the Russian advance is not doing that. They're currently in a COIN battle, but ar
Re: (Score:2)
This is an honest question. I'm not even an airmchair military hobbyist. It's not normally an interest of mine at all. ... so how does that work in practice? How do you use the tanks and infantry together to "clear out people"?
The USMC got rid of its last tank battalion last year. It was either an extreme cost cutting move, or the answer to your question.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an honest question. I'm not even an airmchair military hobbyist. It's not normally an interest of mine at all. ... so how does that work in practice? How do you use the tanks and infantry together to "clear out people"?
Infantry moves with the tanks in coordinated squads. The tank carries equipment and a power source too heavy for the infantry, including long range communications gear, sensor suites, and a big-ass gun that can knock a hole in concrete much more easily than anything the infantry are carrying. The tank also serves as a rallying point for the infantry. A big chunk of mobile armor that is impervious to small arms fire is quite useful even today. It won't always go up against enemy combatants who are equipp
Small Robots (Score:2)
"Ukraine has decimated Russia's tanks" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of Roman military discipline in which every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort. The discipline was used by senior commanders in the Roman Army to punish units or large groups guilty of capital offences, such as cowardice, mutiny, desertion, and insubordination, and for pacification of rebellious legions. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".
I could be wrong though. I've always been a little confused since "decimation" in signal processing usually involves eliminating a large, rather than small, fraction of the data.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the usage is actually consistent with the ancient meaning in this case. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of Roman military discipline in which every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort. The discipline was used by senior commanders in the Roman Army to punish units or large groups guilty of capital offences, such as cowardice, mutiny, desertion, and insubordination, and for pacification of rebellious legions. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".
I could be wrong though. I've always been a little confused since "decimation" in signal processing usually involves eliminating a large, rather than small, fraction of the data.
That is the common use of the term is all except historic contexts. Which is what makes it funny when you can use it in the historically accurate sense, that doesn't match what people think it means.
Re: "Ukraine has decimated Russia's tanks" (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Too many sports commentators abuse this word. "They've decimated the opposition defence". Sports commentators should be decimated to set an example.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote is not 100% correct.
It was not a 10th per se. The offending unit had to stand in a single row. The commander walked the row until he found one he could not stand. From this one up to the end of the row, every 10th was executed.
Obviously he could pick the first soldier as first victim. Then it is obviously every tenth who dies.
Re: (Score:2)
When is war over with 1st world nations? (Score:2)
This is nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever since the battle of Cambrai where tanks were first used, it became obvious that if tanks are not effectively supported by infantry, they will be destroyed. At Cambrai the tanks weren't fighting against drones, they were fighting against mortars, but it's the same principle.
Effective combined arms operations are essential to modern warfare (and actually to ancient warfare). The tanks need to operate with infantry.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since the battle of Cambrai where tanks were first used, it became obvious that if tanks are not effectively supported by infantry, they will be destroyed. At Cambrai the tanks weren't fighting against drones, they were fighting against mortars, but it's the same principle.
Effective combined arms operations are essential to modern warfare (and actually to ancient warfare). The tanks need to operate with infantry.
Russian military ineptitude certainly comes into play, but it's not clear how much help infantry would be against drones or a javelin fired from a kilometer away.
I think the issue here is the arms race. Russian tanks don't have the hardware to either locate or neutralize the threats posed by modern anti-tank weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian tanks don't have the hardware to either locate or neutralize the threats posed by modern anti-tank weapons.
I think the same. There are plenty of modern fire and forget weapons that under the right circumstances can simply be fired into the rough direction of a tank. They pick up targets automatically - talk to each other so they do not pick the same, they fly in high arched hyperbolas, so they usually are not that vulnerable to active armour.
A friend of mine served in a "heavy infantry" - anti tank
Re: (Score:2)
Russian military ineptitude certainly comes into play, but it's not clear how much help infantry would be against drones or a javelin fired from a kilometer away.
This threat is similar to the threat of a mortar team. The advantage of the drones/javelines is precision.
In the current conflict, one approach is for the infantry to spread out and clear the land around the column of thanks and supply chains so the javelin/mortar teams can't get close enough to cause damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian military ineptitude certainly comes into play, but it's not clear how much help infantry would be against drones or a javelin fired from a kilometer away.
This threat is similar to the threat of a mortar team. The advantage of the drones/javelines is precision.
In the current conflict, one approach is for the infantry to spread out and clear the land around the column of thanks and supply chains so the javelin/mortar teams can't get close enough to cause damage.
If the tank needs that much of a buffer what military role is it serving?
Re: (Score:2)
If the tank needs that much of a buffer what military role is it serving?
Destroying enemy infantry. It's like rock/paper/scissors.
Small guerilla groups > Tanks > Infantry > Small guerilla groups
It's more complicated than that (air is really great) but that's the general idea.
Re: (Score:2)
> Russian military ineptitude certainly comes into play, but it's not clear how much help infantry would be against drones or a javelin fired from a kilometer away.
Accuracy and opportunity to hit drop off drastically at longer ranges. Furthermore, the single file line that Russia is using is just asking to get slaughtered by Javelins and their ilk.
The critical thing about the javelins isn't the javelins per se, it is the TEAMS that are getting away with firing a single missile at incredibly close range a
Re: (Score:2)
A quick trip over to Wikipedia and the article on Cambrai shows that it was NOT the first use of tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, fine. The battle of Cambrai where tanks were first effective used.
Re: (Score:2)
And air.
Re: (Score:2)
And just what is infantry going to do? Wave at the switchblade drone as it comes crashing on their head? Perhaps they'll shoot it out of the air with their rifles?
There are many things that are dangerous to infantry on the battlefield. Things like switchblade drones are not magic and they fit into pre-existing categories. A switchblade drone is easier to stop than a mortar. It's easier to stop than a cannonball. A switchblade drone is easier to stop than a catapult boulder. Something like this is much more dangerous to infantry than a switchblade [youtube.com], and has the same range as the Switchblade 300.
The advantage of a Switchblade drone is precision. It can pinpoint a genera
Betteridge's Law of Headlines (Score:2)
"No".
They remain useful as portable mixtures of armor and artillery together.
Defective Equipment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They're designed to protect against hits from the sides, hits from ground forces and other tanks, but the tops are more vulnerable. The weapons Ukraine has been using (drones and javelins) target the tank from above where they're weaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Composite armour only works very limited. It is more an aim to make the armour lighter than tougher. Keep in mind, a bazooka or similar weapon explodes in front of the target, and shots a very hot stream of burning/melting metals against the armour. It basically smelts its way inside.
Active armour only works: once. After it exploded and deflected the incoming shell/missile, it is gone. And I would assume a sniper shot or at least a good aimed machine gun salvo will destroy it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
There just isn't any practical armour that can be fitted to a tank that will protect from these modern weapons.
It reminds me of the switch from full plate armour to combat fatigues. Once new weapons arrived on the battlefield suddenly mobility was all important and armour didn't work anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a mix of conscripts and "contractors" who signed up (allegedly) voluntarily. Plenty of details at https://www.csis.org/blogs/pos... [csis.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Javelin missiles have a "precursor warhead" which detonates the reactive armor, allowing the main warhead to penetrate the tank hull. NLAWs are just big enough to penetrate the top armor of a tank even if it has reactive armor.
All that said, according to some reports the "reactive armor" on some abandoned Russian vehicles turned out to be dummy cardboard units that are used in training. This squares with reports that many Russian soldiers were told they were going on a training exercise.
The Russians evid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I would say the view that supports that would be how willing Ukraine is to negotiate for peace, they have already agreed to most of the 6 demands from Russia and the sticking point is the territory, if Russia were losing that badly there is no way they would be accepting any of it.
Which ones?
The only one I've heard of is not joining NATO and being some kind of "neutral". NATO hasn't been a realistic option since 2014 (don't accept a member currently at war with Russia) and neutral to Ukraine means something very different than what Putin wants.
Either way it's Ukrainian civilians getting killed and Ukrainian cities being levelled due to an unprovoked invasion from Russia. Of course Ukraine is interested in negotiating for peace, they were never interested in war in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually another explanation: The reports of how poorly Russia is doing, and how much of their fighting capacity has been destroyed are fake news.
And Russian forces are hanging around outside of major Ukrainians cities because they're suntanning?
Even Russia doesn't reduce a city they mean to capture to rubble [rferl.org] if they have other options.
I suspect that Putin has mostly given up on Kiev, between the casualties and the sanctions he can't wait the months it would take to win. Instead, he's hoping to grab Mariupol, strike a peace deal, and then hope a land route to Crimea is enough to keep him in power. Though I doubt that's a deal Ukraine will take.
I'm be
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually another explanation: The reports of how poorly Russia is doing, and how much of their fighting capacity has been destroyed are fake news.
That doesn't fit observed reality. Even in Russian media the advance has been stopped for two weeks. They don't say that outright, but they are also not saying how they are advancing to new cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. That is technically another explanation. It lacks all credibility though. Another explanation is that Russia is fully in control but going slowly so that they can shake hands with all the locals who are welcoming them with flowers and salo.
Missing a of context (Score:2)
"An infantry that is determined to fight is now super-empowered by having things like a huge number of point-and-shoot disposable anti-tank rockets, If they can get access to them"
FTFY
Only reason the Ukraine has managed to do this is because they had access to modern anti-tank weapons.
Some Banana republic without the resources to interest an arms supplying supporter like the USA, Russia, China, or have the money to buy them from said suppliers wouldn't stand a chance against modern tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
well, no. But "tanks are badass if you can't kill them" isn't news.
nothing new. (Score:2)
June 4, 1942, 10:25 AM. Remember the time. (Score:2)
Well, this Ukraine invasion might prove to be the decisive end of tanks as the mainstay of terrestrial weapon.
But in both cases, heavy strongly armored vehicles were destroyed by extraordinarily nimble lightly armored attackers. Light aluminum carrier aircraft or plastic drones against steel.
This makes sense, even from an 80's POV (Score:5, Interesting)
The Cold War scenarios most often discussed were European theater armor advances. In this environment tanks were necessary to gain territory, but as the 70s became the 80s technology caught them. TOW Missiles, Apache choppers, and the A-10 in particular gave NATO weapons to defeat Russian tank advances, often with little risk. Air superiority was required in this strategy, since Apaches and A-10s were easy targets for a variety of Soviet fighters. Hind choppers etc. were the Soviet response to NATO armor, along with shoulder-launched missiles.
As time progressed, better everything resulted in battle planning using standoff and fire-and-forget ATW, infantry designators allowing troops to 'call in' air-to-ground weapons and close air support, and it was assumed armor had limited usefulness and short life on these battlefields. In the Middle East, a very different set of strategies developed, even in the 60s, and it showed. Still, air superiority yielded the benefit of being able to cover your armor and kill theirs by several methods.
With the end of the Cold War all changed. No serious Russian threat meant new battle plans. And now, with technology taking leaps, we have new anti-armor options. Drones attack easily from above, and most armor around the world is assumed to be vulnerable from above. Also, drones are really hard to target still, and hard to compromise with EW. Asymmetric, an armed drone might cost not much more than a high-end anti-tank missile and give better kill ratios, so that's a big win against armor, and 'armor' includes personnel carriers and mounted artillery. If nothing else, we are learning a lot about modern armored warfare, and at someone else's expense for once.
In all this the M1A2 is considered the most capable and tough tank on the battlefield, Israeli armor notwithstanding. How would it fare in similar circumstances? I doubt any Abrams driver wants to fight without air cover and troops on the perimeter, no matter how tough they think their tank is.
Compromising command and control is still useful, if it does nothing but confuse C&C and deprive your armor of fuel in a timely manner. And I still wait to read some useful information on how Russian equipment is operating - are they well maintained, troops trained, because if not no strategy saves them.
But I'm pretty sure we will see Russian forces in Ukraine move in stages, not because of losses but to manage the advance. And it's not apparent yet that Putin is willing to destroy Ukraine just to claim it for Russia. So we wait and see...
Not only tanks (Score:2)
I saw an article today in which the U.S. military is indicating up 40,000 Russian troops have been killed, wounded, captured or missing. That's 20% of the entire force arrayed against Ukraine. Reports have been coming in of Russian troops getting frostbite because they don't have the proper clothes, while other troops are searching for Ukrainian ammo to shoot each other with so they can get off the battlefield.
With more javelins, NLAWS, panzerfausts, AT-4s and all the other AT weapons pouring in to help U
Re: (Score:2)
And as a follow up, as the weather warms, Ukrainians are going about picking up all the dead bodies of Russian soldiers [cnn.com] because the bodies are beginning to rot. Nor will the Russian troops collect them. As the article relates, one town was sent twenty railroad box cars to store the carcasses, and still Russia won't take them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be used as fertilizers then
Helping to push up the sunflowers.
just a warm up ? (Score:2)
I am far from sufficiently informed, but a thought that comes to my mind is this whole thing is to large degree an exercise on Russia's part to see what needs fixing in the army for some other action.
Irrational Use, Unified Global Resistance (Score:2)
Tanks have never been invincible and there have always been infantry solutions to them, but there has never been such a mass of tanks with such an under-motivated force going up against such a well-supplied and highly-motivated force.
This is a failure of an entire military, not a failure of a technology.
Blowing up stuff... (Score:2)
... is easier than preventing stuff from being blown up. From the World Trade Center towers to Russian tanks, attackers have a significant advantage. It's almost like a law of nature. Returning materials to a disorganized state is easier than preserving them. As an engineer, I can tell you it's much easier to destroy something than it is to create it, or even to keep it from being destroyed. It's almost like the things we construct want to move into a state of higher entropy. High explosives are a cheap and
They are as over as ships (Score:2)
Modern missiles are all point and forget, these slow or non-moving targets are dead in the water.
Or on land.
Drone wars here we come (Score:2)
Let me fix that for you (Score:3)
Ahem: The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Drone War has.
Re: Drone wars here we come (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the purpose of having the tank in that scenario? The attacking force not only has to have as many drones as the defenders... on top of that they have the huge cost of the tank. They're likely better off dumping the tank from the equation and just using drones for attack, as the last paragraph of the summary suggests.
Hopefully Putin's war ends soon, preferably with him completely removed from the picture - but I bet every military in the world is watching this and having to adjust their thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: or perhaps tanks wil be protected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cant really take a city with a drone swarm.
For now. And hopefully for my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
air superiority which for reason that don't seem to be disclosed the Russians do not appear to managed.
It's a combination of several factors:
- The Russian air force is kind of a paper tiger. Their coolest planes only exist as a few hand-built prototypes or even just designs on paper. Their previous gen stuff is mass produced, but also it's basically on par with what Ukraine has
- Russian pilots have an abysmal amount of training and flying hours compared to other countries
- There appears to be a severe lack of proper encrypted radios and/or the training to use them on the Russian side
- Due to that lack
Re: (Score:2)
Due to that lack of training and lack of real military radios, Russian forces lack the close coordination required
Their coordination problems run deeper than just bad comms. The Russian military is among the more corrupt institutions of the inveterate kleptocracy this is Russia. The leadership is populated by 21st century boyars stealing what they're permitted to steal; skimming and selling resources. As such, they behave as the rulers of little fiefdoms, with the attendant conflicts of interest and incompetence one imagines such a system to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except for one thing. Those "relatively cheap" drones cost as much as a tank, never mind in the uber geeky "swarm" version.
The Bayraktar the Ukrainians are using costs about $5 million USD, plus that again for the control unit. Not sure how many missiles you get for that, but the fancy guided kind aren't cheap. A Russian T-90 probably costs $4-5 million. A US predator drone is an order of magnitude more expensive.
Now, drone tanks, that's probably not a bad idea, at least for countries like the US wher
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except for one thing. Those "relatively cheap" drones cost as much as a tank, never mind in the uber geeky "swarm" version.
It's been reported the type of switchblade drones being sent to Ukraine cost a few grand each.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Re: or perhaps tanks wil be protected (Score:2)
But aren't those single use? If the most successful possible operation leads to a complete loss of equipment, the economics start to look different when compared to a platform that runs for decades with good maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
The Switchblade 300 is designed to kill people. It's like an RPG you can steer. I couldn't find out where the $6k figure came from, but one of the sites said on the same page a predator costs $150k, so YMMV.
The 600 has even less information available. It's supposed to be like a javelin missile except it can loiter for a bit. It's supposed to be cheaper than a javelin, which costs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $75k.
Both of them are really missiles. If you want to call them drones then standard doctrine f
Re: (Score:2)
It's supposed to be like a javelin missile except it can loiter for a bit.
That is pretty cool in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you want it to do. A cheap Cessna costs half a million bucks, doesn't fire missiles and you can't control it from your bunker a hundred kilometres away. An expensive one doesn't do those things either, and costs a lot more than 5 mil. But if you think you can make one cheaper you should go for it. Lots of buyers.
The Ukrainians have apparently been using few-hundred dollar DJI drones for surveillance. They work pretty well for things like spotting trucks coming down a highway. But if you want so
Re: (Score:2)
Drones that drop missiles on tanks do too. Probably more so. Aircraft maintenance is expensive and highly specialized.
2 foot drones don't destroy tanks.
Re: or perhaps tanks wil be protected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there aren't existing solutions to the problems the Russians have faced. Normally you move your tanks with infantry to clear out ambushes and air cover to protect them from enemy aircraft. The Russians sent armored columns down deserted city streets with no protection whatsoever, allowing Ukrainians to pick them off with shoulder-fired missiles and strikes from drones boasting the approximate performance of a WW1 biplane.
I heard one wag call the Russian campaign in Ukraine "All bling and no
Re: (Score:2)
Drones are just a variation of mortar (or of aircraft, for long range drones).
Re: (Score:2)
Trophy (Israel Defense Forces designation , lit. "Windbreaker") is a military active protection system (APS) designed to protect vehicles from ATGMs, RPGs, anti-tank rockets, and tank HEAT rounds.[2] A small number of explosively formed projectiles destroy incoming threats before they hit the vehicle.[3] Its principal purpose is to supplement the armour of light and heavy armored fighting vehicles. Developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. of Israel and currently fielding over 1,000 systems to all major Israeli ground combat platforms (Merkava Mark 3 & 4 and Namer APCs), as well as U.S. Abrams M1A1/2, and tested on the Stryker APCs and Bradley AFVs. Trophy protects against a wide variety of anti-tank threats, while also maximizing the vehicle's ability to identify enemy location to crews and combat formation, thereby providing greater survivability and maneuverability in all combat theatres.
Re: (Score:2)
The us has even more (Score:2)
If you count septic tanks. Unfortunately no one knows how to drive them anymore
Re: The us has even more (Score:2)
.... but as soon as she does, Lauren Boebert is invading Washington
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Russia's estimates? The same Russia that literally lies all the time, about everything? Okay. Glad you aren't falling for any sort of propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
There are lies, worse lies, damn lies, and Lavrov words.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative estimates show Russia has 12,000 tanks, not 2,700. Maybe stop believing propaganda from either side, especially the side desperate to draw NATO into WWIII.
Why would an undercount fit that motive, and how can you say what side this Oryx site is on, have you even looked at it? It sounds like your "trying to make NATO start WWIII" narrative is a completely bullshit story and you're too lazy to come up with a consistent plot.
The NATO excuses are just comical now. We're invading you cuz NATO, (but also nazis), (also also because you're becoming less economically dependent on us). Now NATO is going to start WWIII. eyeroll [quora.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In total perhaps 12,000 tanks.
However in active duty it is far less. I have no clue if the mentioned 2,700 are actually the total active ones or the ones attacking Ukraine.
Germany has 6000 tanks, and in active duty we have not even 300.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary states that it is "almost 10% of its estimated active force". I assumed this to mean the number of tanks actively being used in Ukraine not necessarily all working Russian tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mothballed tanks aren't viable weapons in this conflict. They have obsolete equipment; no reactive armor, old comms, etc. Also, Russia doesn't have the ~40,000 trained crew they'd need to operate all of those tanks. They've also shown they don't have the logistics system capable of supplying that amount of armor.
Never mind that those tanks would fair no better than the hundreds they've lost to Javelin and NLAWs, costing thousands of crew.
So, like everything else in Russia, it's a Potemkin force,
Re: (Score:2)
Article references: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u... [wsj.com]
However that has a paywall, so I can't see the references to it. They do say "active tanks", which I assume are those that crossed the border into Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the same dataset they claim that they have killed 14000 troops. Standard combat wounded to loss ratio is 4:1. 14000 means 56000 wounded which will mean that you would not be able to get through the corridor in any hospital in the European part of Russia. We are fully aware that this is not the case.
In fact, they have not drafted any civilian capacity. Wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the same dataset they claim that they have killed 14000 troops. Standard combat wounded to loss ratio is 4:1. 14000 means 56000 wounded which will mean that you would not be able to get through the corridor in any hospital in the European part of Russia. We are fully aware that this is not the case.
1) And where is this "standard combat wounded to loss ratio" that you mention? At best a general rule of thumb is not 100% true in all cases. 2) So you have visited every hospital in the Eastern part of Russia to know that wounded Russian soldier visit civilian hospitals . . . during a military conflict . . . Seems like you are speculating.
In fact, they have not drafted any civilian capacity. While the things are not as rosy as the Russians claim either and they have quite a lot wounded in their major battlefield casualty centres in St Peterburg and Rostov, they are a fraction of that number. Probably somewhere around 10-15 times less.
St. Petersburg is 1200km from Kyiv, Ukraine. Rostov is 1100km away from Kyiv. If anything, any casualties in places that far from the front line would indicate that the
Re: Nonsense (Score:2)
It's about how you count.
You can only count working tanks when it comes to military strength. The rest could as well be cardboard units.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure, but I am sure he will appear constipated and confused while saying it.
Re: (Score:2)
He says that Biden is personally driving the tanks, and that Trump would be able to drive the tanks without having his turn signal left on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nonsense (Score:2)
Autocorrect sucks.