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.
It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
They're for shooting down aircraft. The Javelin and NLAW are not examples of MANPADS.
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.
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.
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.
They’re cheap. One of the reasons the Russians use so much conventional artillery is that it’s cheaper than missiles or air strikes.
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.
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.
Then you mean the infantry screen the enemy infantry from the tanks. You screen the threat, not what you're protecting.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/...
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?
The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins