Russia Ukraine War 2022

[Love Charger]

@Bleh ( indescribable)
@Lonewarrior (ultimate destroyer of defence enthusiast egos)
@Suryavanshi ( has high vitamin D in his body)
@Blood+ ( he donates blood )
@WarPigeon ( a plump brested speckled piegeon named speckled Jim)
@Tactical Doge ( mad boi who chews bones)
I think the tank is itself loosing utility.
Look almost anything can keel even the best tank.
They were good during ww2 when anti tank missiles were not there, attack hepters were not there , but today they seem very vulnerable without infantry support and also it's own counter artillery suppport.
It has it's uses like it can still act as mobile arty to destroy buildings, support infantry to overrun field fortification while infantry protects it from enemy infantry.
And that's it, but all that can be done even a light tank zorawar which we are making or stryker light tank version.
Why make these 70 tonne behemoths?
Tell me

 

[Lonewarrior]

Why make these 70 tonne behemoths?
Tell me

In this Ukraine - Russia conflict we have witnessed many new tactics that are quite effective against MBTs
1. Make a minefield, as soon as enemy formation enters it fire scattering mines behind them and then use precision artillery shots to take out pinned vehicle. This same tactic was successfully used by Ukrainian in the initial days and now by Russians in the offensive
2. Top attacks using both COTS and purpose built drones
3. Attacking from the flank with small ATGM kill teams

These may look like tanks are getting obsolete but in reality the current warfighting doctrines for tanks is getting obsolete, not the "tank" as a concept.

Why? Because
1. There's no other armoured vehicle that can "absorb" this much beating in the frontal arc
2. You still need some kind of offensive ground vehicle to hold a captured position; light tank and mobile gun systems both compromise on armour to lower weight
3. Tanks can do everything that you'd need in a forward line of defence/offence; it can engage enemy tanks, act as tank destroyer with Gun Launched ATGMs, provide fire support for movement, act as mobile bunker or even an makeshift artillery
4. IFV/APC are fast but lightly armed/armoured, MGS are decently armed but lightly armoured, ATGM kill teams are good from small attack not large scale...but tanks despite having its shortcomings is kind of perfect, with balance of all attributes.

So how is the tank warfare doctrine going to change?
1. We'll soon see Russian tanks getting upgraded to either manual loading or bustle autoloader
2. Western tanks have already started working in special guns for anti drone warfare
3. Tanks would start integrating long range strike weapons like loitering munitions in their armament package to engage well beyond the 4km range of main gun
4. We'll see integration of better situational awareness measures like VR headset, warning when you enter an artillery's known field of fire and mine field database
5. Almost every country from Russia to India to US would start having one light and one very heavy MBT in their fleet
6. Aerial support to MBTs would increase but in particular UAV support would increase drastically.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

In this Ukraine - Russia conflict we have witnessed many new tactics that are quite effective against MBTs
1. Make a minefield, as soon as enemy formation enters it fire scattering mines behind them and then use precision artillery shots to take out pinned vehicle. This same tactic was successfully used by Ukrainian in the initial days and now by Russians in the offensive
2. Top attacks using both COTS and purpose built drones
3. Attacking from the flank with small ATGM kill teams

These may look like tanks are getting obsolete but in reality the current warfighting doctrines for tanks is getting obsolete, not the "tank" as a concept.

Why? Because
1. There's no other armoured vehicle that can "absorb" this much beating in the frontal arc
2. You still need some kind of offensive ground vehicle to hold a captured position; light tank and mobile gun systems both compromise on armour to lower weight
3. Tanks can do everything that you'd need in a forward line of defence/offence; it can engage enemy tanks, act as tank destroyer with Gun Launched ATGMs, provide fire support for movement, act as mobile bunker or even an makeshift artillery
4. IFV/APC are fast but lightly armed/armoured, MGS are decently armed but lightly armoured, ATGM kill teams are good from small attack not large scale...but tanks despite having its shortcomings is kind of perfect, with balance of all attributes.

So how is the tank warfare doctrine going to change?
1. We'll soon see Russian tanks getting upgraded to either manual loading or bustle autoloader
2. Western tanks have already started working in special guns for anti drone warfare
3. Tanks would start integrating long range strike weapons like loitering munitions in their armament package to engage well beyond the 4km range of main gun
4. We'll see integration of better situational awareness measures like VR headset, warning when you enter an artillery's known field of fire and mine field database
5. Almost every country from Russia to India to US would start having one light and one very heavy MBT in their fleet
6. Aerial support to MBTs would increase but in particular UAV support would increase drastically.

If Tanks weren't going obsolete, then Russia would've steamrolled against Ukraine so far, given that in the last six months, ukraine had no tanks to speak of.
Warfare is going to move away from tanks. Obviously tanks won't lose their worth instantly, but in the next 10-20 years, tank production will slow down or come to a stop. It will pretty much be an infantry+ UAV + Arty + AA doctrine for the army.

Only in terrain where its extremely difficult for infantry to survive or hold, will we see light tanks in the future.
Happens to many weapons, ultimately they go obsolete.

 

[Blood+]

@Bleh ( indescribable)
@Lonewarrior (ultimate destroyer of defence enthusiast egos)
@Suryavanshi ( has high vitamin D in his body)
@Blood+ ( he donates blood )
@WarPigeon ( a plump brested speckled piegeon named speckled Jim)
@Tactical Doge ( mad boi who chews bones)
I think the tank is itself loosing utility.

Look almost anything can keel even the best tank.
They were good during ww2 when anti tank missiles were not there, attack hepters were not there , but today they seem very vulnerable without infantry support and also it's own counter artillery suppport.
It has it's uses like it can still act as mobile arty to destroy buildings, support infantry to overrun field fortification while infantry protects it from enemy infantry.
And that's it, but all that can be done even a light tank zorawar which we are making or stryker light tank version.
Why make these 70 tonne behemoths?
Tell me

Not quite. By that logic, every type of ground vehicle under the sun has become obsolete. Remember, it ain't just the tanks that are getting punted left and right!!

 

[Master Chief]

Not quite. By your logic, every type of vehicle has become obsolete. Remember, it ain't just the tanks that are getting punted left and right!!

Infantry on foot .. Will be shredded beyond recognition when hit .. Armoured vehicles provide protection against Machine guns and snipers and also provide speed..
Tanks are still being used heavily by both sides to storm trenches .. where a tank leads the way.. after APCs drop off infantry over some distance from the trench..
We see a few tanks destroyed each day.. over a 1000 km front.. There will be many more misses, and bruised but still fighting Tanks.. that just move on after getting hit.. But, we only see the videos where Tanks get blown up as it has greater PR.. Tanks are still relatively hard to kill beasts..

 

[Blood+]

Infantry on foot .. Will be shredded beyond recognition when hit .. Armoured vehicles provide protection against Machine guns and snipers and also provide speed..
Tanks are still being used heavily by both sides to storm trenches .. where a tank leads the way.. after APCs drop off infantry over some distance from the trench..
We see a few tanks destroyed each day.. over a 1000 km front.. There will be many more misses, and bruised but still fighting Tanks.. that just move on after getting hit.. But, we only see the videos where Tanks get blown up as it has greater PR.. Tanks are still relatively hard to kill beasts..

Exactly.

 

[Suryavanshi]

In this Ukraine - Russia conflict we have witnessed many new tactics that are quite effective against MBTs
1. Make a minefield, as soon as enemy formation enters it fire scattering mines behind them and then use precision artillery shots to take out pinned vehicle. This same tactic was successfully used by Ukrainian in the initial days and now by Russians in the offensive
2. Top attacks using both COTS and purpose built drones
3. Attacking from the flank with small ATGM kill teams

These may look like tanks are getting obsolete but in reality the current warfighting doctrines for tanks is getting obsolete, not the "tank" as a concept.

Why? Because
1. There's no other armoured vehicle that can "absorb" this much beating in the frontal arc
2. You still need some kind of offensive ground vehicle to hold a captured position; light tank and mobile gun systems both compromise on armour to lower weight
3. Tanks can do everything that you'd need in a forward line of defence/offence; it can engage enemy tanks, act as tank destroyer with Gun Launched ATGMs, provide fire support for movement, act as mobile bunker or even an makeshift artillery
4. IFV/APC are fast but lightly armed/armoured, MGS are decently armed but lightly armoured, ATGM kill teams are good from small attack not large scale...but tanks despite having its shortcomings is kind of perfect, with balance of all attributes.

So how is the tank warfare doctrine going to change?
1. We'll soon see Russian tanks getting upgraded to either manual loading or bustle autoloader
2. Western tanks have already started working in special guns for anti drone warfare
3. Tanks would start integrating long range strike weapons like loitering munitions in their armament package to engage well beyond the 4km range of main gun
4. We'll see integration of better situational awareness measures like VR headset, warning when you enter an artillery's known field of fire and mine field database
5. Almost every country from Russia to India to US would start having one light and one very heavy MBT in their fleet
6. Aerial support to MBTs would increase but in particular UAV support would increase drastically.

How about a specialized vehicle that accompany armoured columns and counters drone attack.

Or very well replace the machine gun with a automated anti drone system that can engage a drone within 100 to 200 m.

Something has to change to counter the drone threat.

 

[Bleh]

I think the tank is itself loosing utility.
Look almost anything can keel even the best tank.
They were good during ww2 when anti tank missiles were not there, attack hepters were not there , but today they seem very vulnerable without infantry support and also it's own counter artillery suppport.
It has it's uses like it can still act as mobile arty to destroy buildings, support infantry to overrun field fortification while infantry protects it from enemy infantry.
And that's it, but all that can be done even a light tank zorawar which we are making or stryker light tank version.
Why make these 70 tonne behemoths?
Tell me

Tanks have always been very destroyable right since Mauser made Tankgewehr. But used correctly they'd still ruin your day for the foreseeable future... If Ruskys & Ukros use tanks like they are, or Turkey-shoot (see what i did there ) that the Kurds were literally allowed to do, then those make post poor examples of their utility.

I'd apologise to @Blood+ tho. My snark was unnecessary... My logic was at ranges below 1000m where a gunner can feasibly aim for weak-spots (red) in heat of combat <650mm would be penetrable, whole 800m+ could be impervious (green & blue). Considering those T-72/90 don't fare any better than Arjun at turret... while hull lower-glacis is completely vulnerablen in both, but still Arjun's frontal fuel-tank would offer some ammo-safety atleast against HEAT.

I made an Arjun LOS armour thickness comparison diagram with T-72/90 & TankEx, which shows complete superiority of the last (which is why I may sound like a shameless peddler for it).

At longer ranges of 2km+ I was told rounds come at angles of atleast 10° & that's why upper glacis are prioritised.

 

[Lonewarrior]

How about a specialized vehicle that accompany armoured columns and counters drone attack.

Or very well replace the machine gun with a automated anti drone system that can engage a drone within 100 to 200 m.

Apni teesri aur aakhri khwahish batayein mere aaka, Jinn haazir hai

 

[Longewala]

If Tanks weren't going obsolete, then Russia would've steamrolled against Ukraine so far, given that in the last six months, ukraine had no tanks to speak of.
Warfare is going to move away from tanks. Obviously tanks won't lose their worth instantly, but in the next 10-20 years, tank production will slow down or come to a stop. It will pretty much be an infantry+ UAV + Arty + AA doctrine for the army.

Only in terrain where its extremely difficult for infantry to survive or hold, will we see light tanks in the future.
Happens to many weapons, ultimately they go obsolete.

"It will pretty much be an infantry+ UAV + Arty + AA doctrine for the army"
And that's when tanks make a comeback, as a tanks+infantry+ UAV + Arty + AA combine stomps over the group that foolishly let go of their tanks.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

"It will pretty much be an infantry+ UAV + Arty + AA doctrine for the army"
And that's when tanks make a comeback, as a tanks+infantry+ UAV + Arty + AA combine stomps over the group that foolishly let go of their tanks.

As i said, if tanks would be the decieder in this scenario, then Russia would've broken through and held all east bank Dneiper in the six month window of where Ukraine had no tanks.

 

[Sarjen]

Mine Games///

Russians were throwing Mines ( each tube contains about 100x) front and behind the lines with the help of drones, while Ukrainians were trying to clear some of the existing mines. Poor Ukrainians were just trapped in the endless fields So they were taking a long time while the column behind the mine sweepers were just stuck.. easy picking for the Kamikazis, artillery and ATGm squads.

 

[Longewala]

As i said, if tanks would be the decieder in this scenario, then Russia would've broken through and held all east bank Dneiper in the six month window of where Ukraine had no tanks.

If having a lot of tanks, way more than the opponents was the decider in any scenario, not just this war, then the Russians would have been in Berlin in 1941 and the Arabs in Tel Aviv in 1967.

What your analysis misses out is that it's not just tanks that have been shattered when trying to attack - it's all vehicles and infantry attacks as well. Judging by this war, the lesson is not that you should give up tanks, it's that you should just give up attacking completely.

In reality, warfare will just evolve, drone tactics will get even better, but you will see more emphasis on artillery, counter battery, counter drone EW, etc.

And eventually it will again come to the stage where it will be down to two groups of soldiers facing off. And the winners would be the ones that have tanks. They would still lose a few of their tanks, but they will win.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

If having a lot of tanks, way more than the opponents was the decider, then the Russians would have been in Berlin in 1941 and the Arabs in Tel Aviv in 1967.

1941 ? You mean Russians would've teleported to Berlin the moment Germany declared war on Russia ? Russia DID end up in berlin. Before the yanks. Coz they had overwhelming superiority in tanks & manpower and crushed the germans nearly singlehanded.

What your analysis misses out is that it's not just tanks that have been shattered when trying to attack - it's all vehicles and infantry attacks as well. Judging by this war, the lesson is not that you should give up tanks, it's that you should just give up attacking completely.

Funny how over a 100 years after WW1, we are back to the same paradigm: he who attacks, dies. I agree with the last part of the quote but logic says, if you give up on attacking, then you should give up on tanks too, since tanks are pretty much overwhelmingly an attacking platform, not a defensive one.

In reality, warfare will just evolve, drone tactics will get even better, but you will see more emphasis on artillery, counter battery, counter drone EW, etc.

Agreed. Which means, still no tank.

And eventually it will again come to the stage where it will be down to two groups of soldiers facing off. And the winners would be the ones that have tanks. They would still lose a few of their tanks, but they will win.

Why ? You just said, give up on attacking. If we give up on attacking, we should also give up on platforms that are overwhelmingly for attacking !

 

[Suryavanshi]

Usually the Americna doctrine against weak nation is.
>Air assault destroying most of enemies radars and AD meanwhile crusie missile launched from ships destroy air assets in hangers.
>Apache Sweep in while some SpecOps take place simultaneously
>Tank push though.
>ground forces arrives in armoured vehicles.

But Russia is no IRAQ.

The initial airial assault package would have a pound for pound fight.
Thus disrupting their MO.

 

[Lonewarrior]

But Russia is no IRAQ

And that's why Russia has done none of the aforementioned steps. Instead it's slowly and continuously pushing retired AIM-7 and 203mm via a proxy

 

[Sarjen]

Where the F is that Nazi guy .... He was boasting about western Tanks,,,,\\\ ???????


The Fuck a drone is completely taking out F'king German tank in a single strike....

Come make fun of Russiam t-60s now fool....

 

[Longewala]

1941 ? You mean Russians would've teleported to Berlin the moment Germany declared war on Russia ? Russia DID end up in berlin. Before the yanks. Coz they had overwhelming superiority in tanks & manpower and crushed the germans nearly singlehanded.



Funny how over a 100 years after WW1, we are back to the same paradigm: he who attacks, dies. I agree with the last part of the quote but logic says, if you give up on attacking, then you should give up on tanks too, since tanks are pretty much overwhelmingly an attacking platform, not a defensive one.



Agreed. Which means, still no tank.


Why ? You just said, give up on attacking. If we give up on attacking, we should also give up on platforms that are overwhelmingly for attacking !

You really need to learn to read.

 

[NeXoft007]

Please DM me ASAP if anyone's here able to help me out on an urgent basis.

 

[Longewala]

Where the F is that Nazi guy .... He was boasting about western Tanks,,,,\\\ ???????


The Fuck a drone is completely taking out F'king German tank in a single strike....

Come make fun of Russiam t-60s now fool....

Bhai yeh T-60 kya hai? Kahani mein naya character? T-72 missing 16.67% of its weight after losing turret? 58th sequel of Terminator 2?

But yes, nice to see those tanks which Western militaries invested so much ego in, go up in smoke. Need some Chally 2s to get the same treatment. Then we can point and laugh at them next time they try to insult Arjun.