For the one thousandth time, Main Battle Tanks are as far from obsolete as you possibly can get.
Define america? I’m here and quite happy with this.
The Military Industry and mainly being skeptical that “Ukraine will find these tanks complex and hard to sustain.”
But like always the Ukrainian people will make it work, they have no choice because otherwise the Kremlin wins
One of the reasons why putin needs Ukraine back is so they can improve all of russias tech. Ukraine designed and built most of their weapons at one time.
The US wishes it had the technical skill of Ukraine.
In this case defining america is easy.
A line of supply ships full of 155mm artillery, strykers, bradleys and abrams.
Where is that america?
Work on your reading comprehension and try again.
as an American i am happy they got 49 tanks. i want them to get another 49 asap. and then 49 after that. if Russia want a war, lets give it. lets make Ukraine the Front line defense in Putin’s grab for land.
I can’t wait to see the new obsolete South Korean K3 tank
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-us-marines-got-rid-their-tanks-207915
has, near the end, one of the most incompetent pieces of “logic” I’ve ever seen.
"the Russian military has lost 2,200 tanks out of a force that had consisted of 3,500 before the war began.
Based on how the Kremlin’s tanks fared – and how the Western-made MBTs like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 failed to be the miracle weapons Kyiv hoped for – it would seem that the Marine Corps made the right move. In a future war, they’ll be able to say they lost no tanks, simply because they had none to lose!
However, tanks continue to see service around the world, including in Ukraine. That’s because while drones have proven successful, it was largely because there haven’t been successful tools to counter them. Tanks have survived even as anti-tank rifles, land mines, bazookas, and RPGs were developed to destroy them.
Tanks will, therefore, continue to have a place on the battlefield."
It isn’t anti-tank-rifles, land-mines, bazookas, or RPG’s that render tanks obsolete: it is Saint Javelin that does.
When a troop-portable missile can take out a tank costing 100x as much, then by deploying tanks you are GIVING the enemy a way to bankrupt you.
Shoot-n-scoot artillery is MUCH cheaper, hits harder, & is harder to eradicate.
That statistic, up-top in the quote: 1,300/3,500 Russian tanks left, SHOULD clue people in about just how ill-suited the things are, to long grinding all-out war-of-attrition, which includes anti-tank missiles & drones destroying them from above.
The whole karate-style high-concentration-strike-on-high-value-target is an efficient way to either be forced into ally-dependency ( both sides are ), XOR to bankruptcy.
The proper method is to remove high-value-targets from one’s army, & make EVERY platoon capable of taking-out significant enemy-means ( MRAP? as much as AFV? ), & getting the capability as distributed as possible.
Thanks to drones saturating the front, there now are no more concentrations-of-force, from what I’ve read.
You create a convoy, & that itself draws fire/drones.
So, everything’s dispersed, now.
Which makes a gang of tanks, clustering to concentrate firepower on an enemy-concentration-of-force … irrelevant.
I’m certain that the USMC blundered when they oriented to island-warfare, but since they’ll be being deployed against Canada soon, enforcing Trump’s annexation ( using Greenland as a base to snuff Canada’s EU-lifeline, which is WHY he “NEEDS” Greenland: his other “justifications” are just red-herrings )…
I’m glad they optimized for the wrong thing.
Same as their “USMC obeys ANY legal order.” law:
Once Trump crosses his tipping-point, uses the Insurrection Act to overthrow the constitution, & “de-naturalizes” all non-Republicans, thereby making them all into “illegals”, which … AUTOMATICALLY obliges that they be ICE’d …
& AUTOMATICALLY guarantees that there won’t be any non-Republican judges to appeal to …
… then “legal order” will include things like “machine-gun & then napalm all those protesters”, & USMC’d then be obliged to do that.
Again: they optimized for the wrong thing, & it’ll cost them their heart/soul.
( this indicates that “we will obey any order which complies with national AND international law” would have been a better cultural-rule:
dictatorship highjacks countries, & having some law outside the country then becomes required, for forces within the country to not be remanufactured into embodying evil. )
IF one doesn’t consider the economics of fielding tanks against troop-deployable missiles, THEN one doesn’t deserve to prevail in war.
Master Sun ( aka Sun Tzu, or the more recent Sunzi ) understood this & told us directly, millenia ago.
_ /\ _
You dropped this:
.mlI’m permabanned from lemmy.ml among others.
& do NOT think they’re on the right track.
& DO think that seeing things objectively is the right track.
_ /\ _
Based on how the Kremlin’s tanks fared – and how the Western-made MBTs like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 failed to be the miracle weapons Kyiv hoped for – it would seem that the Marine Corps made the right move. In a future war, they’ll be able to say they lost no tanks, simply because they had none to lose!
The Marine Corp is optimized for storming beaches and opening theaters for heavy firepower, Main Battle Tanks come way after that especially in the Pacific theater. By the time main battle tanks come into the picture the function of the Marines will be needed elsewhere.
It isn’t anti-tank-rifles, land-mines, bazookas, or RPG’s that render tanks obsolete: it is Saint Javelin that does.
When a troop-portable missile can take out a tank costing 100x as much, then by deploying tanks you are GIVING the enemy a way to bankrupt you.
A tank and an antitank missile are different tools with different jobs, an effective antitank missile changes how tanks are used, it has nothing to do with replacing them.
Armor is for moving troops around while protected, drones/guided missiles make that function MORE valuable to a military not less.
The cost analysis of AT weapons vs tanks completely misses the point of tanks, it is like hyperfocusing on a drill bit on a mining rig and being like “look how obsolete drill bits are they ALWAYS break and they are so expensive compared to the rest of the drill rig”.
Main battle tanks are the spear point of armored maneuever, they come into play at the most intense concentrations of force, just seeing them through the lens of cost misses almost the entire essential dynamic going on here.
When you kick a door down you aren’t generally concerned with the wasting calories, your goal is to decisively smash a breach open through defenses so the next step in a plan can happen AS FAST as possible.
My point is that concentration-of-force ITSELF isn’t happening, anymore, because drones have made that suicidal.
& when concentration-of-force isn’t happening, anymore, then … weapons which multiply 1 side’s advantage in concentration-of-force … are irrelevant.
Tanks are strong weapons.
But … why am I getting deja-vu about this… what similar-thing happened back in WW1 or WW2…
here’s 1, but of a different context, entirely:
Vietnam: ditch the 7.62 NATO round in favor of the 5.56, which IN JUNGLE is more-useful.
OK, so what happens when the army gets deployed in Iraq, in open desert, & there’s no jungle?
then one gets killed, helplessly, by the farther-reaching rounds being used by the enemy.
THE CONTEXT CHANGED, see?
.: the technological-appropriateness changed, too!
https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/fpv-drones-ukraine-war-analysis/
"The Primary Anti-Tank Weapon
While advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) like the Javelin remain highly effective, the FPV drone has emerged as the primary and most frequently used anti-tank weapon of the war, largely due to its cost and availability. FPV operators have become adept tank hunters, exploiting the vulnerabilities of even the most modern main battle tanks. Tactics often involve targeting specific weak points such as the optics, the turret ring, the engine compartment, or the tracks.
A single FPV strike, especially with a standard RPG warhead, may not always result in a “catastrophic kill” that destroys the tank outright. However, it is often sufficient to achieve a “mobility kill” by damaging the tracks or engine, leaving the heavily armoured vehicle stranded and vulnerable. Once a tank is disabled, it can be systematically destroyed by subsequent FPV strikes or targeted by other assets like artillery or grenade-dropping drones that can precisely drop munitions into open hatches. Analysis of combat footage suggests that destroying a tank can sometimes require ten or more FPV drones, but given their low cost, this is still a highly favourable exchange. The effectiveness rate varies widely based on operator skill, target defences, and electronic warfare conditions, with estimates for successful strikes against armoured vehicles ranging from as low as 5% to as high as 50% for elite units. Regardless of the precise percentage, the sheer volume of attacks has made FPVs the leading cause of armoured vehicle losses for both sides"
further down:
"The Attrition Engine and the Death of Manoeuvre
The most significant strategic impact of the FPV drone, in concert with other ISR assets, has been the creation of a hyper-lethal and transparent battlespace that has effectively killed large-scale manoeuvre warfare. The constant threat of detection and precision strike from above makes the concentration of forces, the very foundation of a combined arms breakthrough, prohibitively costly and risky. As a result, both Russian and Ukrainian armies have been deprived of their tactical and operational mobility, forcing combat to devolve into a grinding, positional war of attrition reminiscent of World War I, but with 21st-century technology."
It’s RIGHT THERE: CONCENTRATION-OF-FORCE isn’t the way it’s done, now.
_ /\ _
Not that far… Very close to being obsolete, actually. Might still be useful for some time if gets rid of a crew.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
I like how their entire argument is just “nuh-uh”.
I do. And I suppose you have seen a tank only in the picture.
If you have actual military experience your confidence in being wrong is even more funny.
deleted by creator
Oh, it WILL. I just claim that the very concept of tanks is approaching its death. It won’t happen tomorrow: during this war these machines are still useful. Moreover, we use a lot of outdated weaponry. Because we don’t have any better options.
deleted by creator
Just look at the numbers of damaged tanks. Look how these numbers declined through the years. Why?
I’m talking about common sense: huge heavy and slow steel boxes with a gun feel bad on a modern battlefield. They were constructed for completely different backgrounds. Now we need something tiny and fast.
huge heavy and slow steel boxes with a gun feel bad on a modern battlefield.
The M1 can achieve speeds of 60 MPH. Its stabilization system lets it fire accurately at targets 2 kilometers away while at those speeds. It has a 120mm cannon that can fire a range of anti-armor and anti-personnel munitions.
It’s far from slow, and is extremely capable.
The first salvo from these two Abrams demonstrates how Abrams tanks are extremely maneuverable. One tank sits on guard jussst too far into defilade to have Line Of Sight on the enemy, then the other tank advances into Line Of Sight while covered and IMMEDIATELY fires.
After several shots both tanks reverse quickly back into full cover.
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/690033/combined-arms-live-fire-exercise-shows-m1-abrams-fire-power
Russia never bothered to make tanks that could do this, and their doctrine pretends this type of skirmish attack isn’t the bread and butter of tank warfare which has been demonstrated to be a major strategic blunder for them.
This maneuverability demo shows how wildly offbase the idea is that the Abrams is not highly agile.
deleted by creator
Yes, they are.
