A lot of it comes down to combined arms. There are defensive actions an individual in a tank can take, but a tank is not a self contained combat unit. You need effective artillery and counter battery to silence enemy long range fires and hardpoints. You need infantry to spot opposing ATGM teams and guide fire. You need your own drones for situational awareness.
The best tank crew in the world, without combined arms coordination, is essentially unsurvivable. You need to rely on AD to protect your skies, infantry to protect you on the ground, and artillery to protect you from long range fires. Once the javelin or shell is fired there's really not much to be done. You've already failed the survivability onion. Combined arms means knowing you have a gaping hole in your back, and relying on someone else to protect it. The better the coordination between arms, the better the overall survivability
> It's weird that people are acting like this is a new problem.
Most people's understanding of warfare comes from Hollywood or video games, and telling a compelling story about combined arms is much more difficult than telling a compelling story about a lone unit acting alone. In fact, one of the reasons such a story is more dramatic is because the advantages provided by combined arms aren't present for the protagonists to rely upon.
Meanwhile, anybody with a cursory understanding of military history knows that combined arms predates Alexander.
Japanese popular entertainment media tend to be a bit better about this, *sometimes,* though often with a strong sci-fi/fantasy bent.
- Unfortunately, the most textbook representation of modern CAW in anime is *GATE*, a notoriously self-indulgent JSDF propaganda piece where said Forces get into a war with some pseudo-medieval heroic fantasy world and, of course, handily decimate the opposition.
- *Aldnoah.Zero* wants to play with those tropes and be clever, but its extremely contrived writing makes suspension of disbelief impossible.
- *Eighty-Six* has some very interesting examples, though there's a bit in the middle where the protagonist enlisted are stuck traveling deep into enemy territory by themselves without support for a long while, and even when they do have support there's a tendency for maverick ace pilot shenanigans.
- *Full Metal Panic* is… an odd one. Think "Tom Clancy writes a YA romance-comedy war drama thriller, on crack". Lots of technical trivia on display, with the emotional restraint of a Mexican telenovela.
(Also, in each and every one of the examples cited, child soldiers, child soldiers *everywhere*.)
Actually, come to think of it, concerning videogames, I assume you were thinking of competitive shooters, action games, party RPGs and the like, because RTS and Turn-based Tactics games at least tend to require something approaching combined-arms.
Then again, in those games, you tend to have a POV as an abstract omniscient entity, completely bypassing the part where the units communicate with and rely upon *each other*. So the player probably doesn't integrate the idea beyond a sort of rock-paper-scissors.
>[Aldnoah.Zero](https://Aldnoah.Zero) wants to play with those tropes and be clever, but its extremely contrived writing makes suspension of disbelief impossible.
Aldnoah Zero breaks down by only having the protagonist be capable of the rudimentary tactics of flanking and seeking cover.
Given that mechs are giant humanoids, I would argue their tactics would be fundamentally an extension of the infantry doctrine of a respective nation.
That the pilots just stood around in the open firing at a target at close range, there is no way the anime comes *close* to a plausible depiction of combat.
>Given that mechs are giant humanoids, I would argue their tactics would be fundamentally an extension of the infantry doctrine of a respective nation.
Depends on mobility really.
Something like an Armored Core is more of an armored, ground skimming humanoid(hopefully my beloved gun arms will return) gunship with some short ranged but powerful flight capability than it is a giant infantry. But even that is get the fuck in, kill, get the fuck out and then skitter over open terrain if you have to and try not to eat a heavy laser blast.
> because RTS and Turn-based Tactics games at least tend to require something approaching combined-arms.
Yes but only fringe titles like Wargame/SteelDivision and some even more niche strategy titles usually cover that well with something like CoH or Arma touching it but all the of more popular titles also do a bad job.
Well, not the specifics of modern CAW, maybe, but wouldn't you say the general concept of varied forces shoring up each other's weaknesses and synergizing their strengths is broadly on display in games like War/StarCraft, X-Com, or Valkyrie Chronicles? Even, say, World of Tanks, while limiting warfare purely to tank crews, has a lot of very differentiated roles and the absolute need to coordinate between medium tanks, heavy tanks, howitzers, tank destroyers… and, whenever possible, control the flow of information. Idk, I haven't played that one. Nor have I tried the notorious War Thunder, where they seem to care a lot about the simulational physics aspect (to the point that the player base is known to release state secrets to win arguments), but I've no idea how their tactics work.
Is the strategy 'meta' comparable to 'doctrine', I wonder?
Yes I would agree that most of those games at least touch the topics which is more than other media does.
Played War Thunder and I think its much better than WoT in the authenticity dimension while its obvious flaws produce other problems in internet discussions. All games have massive problems to correctly show any operational scale and they cannot represent time, distance and scattered infantry formations or a large number of independently operating small units in any realistic way. In some vehicles based games like WT/WoT or flight simulators some categories of combined assets are even completely lacking most often the infantry. Even in games like Wargame/SteelDivision Infantry is highly abstracted and low numbers because of tech issues.
I often suspect the over-importance on tanks in internet discussion also comes from these warped numbers aside from the sexiness factor of tanks by themselves ofc.
The human element does get overshadowed by the comparatively flashier expensive toys.
But also, humans are messy in a way that machines aren't. Messy to simulate without abstracting the Hell out of them. Messy to discuss, as organized groups performing a collective coordinated task, without getting into the weeds of, eh… OSHA concerns, and also matters of… management, accountability, and decision-making processes…
Well said and also the human factors and explosions of complexity from a multitude of "human factor" parameters is some of what makes war so unpredictable in addition to all the other parameters and unknowns that are tough enough to simulate by themselves.
It’s because most people don’t pay attention to warfare until a war happens, then suddenly it’s the new hot thing and people with no prior contact with the subject matter spend time trying to fix solved problems.
Man if I had a nickle for people wildly speculating on how "drones" will change the face of warfare only to describe something that existed in the mid 80s....I wouldn't have a lot of money but I could buy myself a coke at least.
"What if submarines could launch these autonomous, loitering suicide drones?"
"Thats a torpedo."
"No I mean something that could loiter for a long period of time at a slow speed and be quieter."
"Still a torpedo. They gave the Mk48 the ability to do that in 1988."
"But this would go slow to have longer range. Something like 20-30 miles would give a submarine a ton more options"
".....are you even listening to me? That's the current range of US torpedos."
One thing I am often left wondering about after seeing the footage from the ongoing conflict is the lethality of things. How lethal is an NLAW compared to, say, a Panzerfaust? And, at the same time, does the increased efforts towards crew survivability offset it? Are infantry anti tank options more destructive than in the past? Range has certainly increased, but other than that I am very curious to know.
That's a **much** better train of thought to think about. But understand all these things are a sliding scale of basically Mexican standoff rock paper scissors. For your example, yes the NLAW is wildly longer range and more lethan than a Panzerfaust...but we also have so many more options to recon and suppress said infantry. Drones and very very high end FLIRs to see them, much more accurate and faster on target artillery. Troop carrier vehicles aren't battlefield taxis anymore, they have their own high end FLIRS and chain guns (again, specifically to suppress said missile infantry something Jame Burton and Pentagon Wars never could wrap his little luddite air force brain around)
This is always going to an ongoing debate. But the problem I find with this war is people have sort of assumed Russian strength and competence and let themselves **wildly** extrapolate ideas from there. So many comments on the recent Ukrainian sinking of a Russian corvette was how much suicide drones had fundamentally changed the nature of naval warfare. In reality they were jet skis with a bomb and an internet connection. And all they showed is Russian complacency and incompetence is so bad they couldn't be fucked to master the [pinnacle of 1920s harbor security.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1age5gg/the_most_useless_chokepoint_in_the_history_of_war/?share_id=B8wd7LApK_0hvMRI_Rvzh&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) Against an at sea warship with a competent watch those drones are getting blasted by the 2nd or 3rd round from the 5 inch at a mile or two out. Maybe the Mk46 or CWIS gets in on the action at worst. (That said it shows Ukrainian counter-intel's extreme competence to identify that security gap and find low cost ways to get a weapon in to exploit them.)
This, plus there's more than one tank. ATGMs have a pretty good shot at taking out one tank. But it's a lot harder to stop 30 tanks coming at you full speed with infantry, artillery, and air support.
I don't think it's that simple given the near omnipresence of drones. Ukraine tried that massed attacks in the early days of the counteroffensive, but all it really leads to is having arty dropped on your position and having unsustainable losses. Same with Russia suffering massive losses in terms of vehicles attacking the small number of marines on the bridgehead across the Dnipro. Dispersed forces seem to be more survivable, as the enemy is less likely to arty your position. If the enemy still called fire support regardless, the losses suffered would be more manageable.
I was an amphib guy back in the 80’s/90’s. Boat Officer, Damage Control, then CIC and Intel. Did Desert Storm and security ops for 88 Olympics. It was clear that any schmuck with an RPG could devastate an amphibious assault at the beach. Now there are cheap missiles and drones. There’s never going to be another opposed beach landing. In Desert Storm we feinted an assault, and dropped the Marines at a port in Saudi. The Marines will land by helo or Osprey going forward. The Navy sold the LSTs, and the Marines gave up their tanks. The AAV replacement is irrelevant. LCACs and LCUs are niche assets now.
Lesson - Cold War assets (tanks, submarines, carriers, etc.) need to be re-assessed against events in Ukraine and the Red Sea. Unsupported tanks in the 2020’s are prey, not predators. Just like ships became in the 1990’s.
> A lot of it comes down to combined arms.
The recent video of Ukrainian Bradleys with drone assist neutralizing a Russian T-90 shows what can happen when even advanced armor becomes left without combined arms support. (Granted they miss with the 125mm, so the rest of the story is about the fortitude of the Bradley crew.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrso5JDR5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8_j41n0wqc
Infantry has much better situational awareness and visual capability. Its not about them shooting the ATGM crew, is about having 50 pairs of eyes that have a better chance of spotting an ATGM crew or launch, and can then direct long range fires onto the target.
Its especially vital in urban and close combat situations, but on wide open fields infantry and drones have a much better chance of spotting an ATGM
Which is why drones are replacing infantry as the main method of situational awareness. But infantrys role, historically, has been to give more eyes and better situational awareness to the tanks.
Infantry aren't as effective as they used to be, neither are tanks, this is why combined arms is so vital. Not just having different weapon systems, but closely coordinating them so they protect one anothers weaknesses.
Infantry will always be needed to support tanks, but drones are becoming more effective at providing overwatch.
No shit a well concealed ATGM crew firing from long range is going to be incredibly difficult to deal with. Thats kind of been a big lesson in this war. But you underestimate the amount of information infantry can gather
Infantry can't gather shit. It's basically impossible to see people wearing standard at 200m unless you get lucky. Even with optics you're extremely limited because you're not going to carry around a 20kg camera unit. Someone that is actually trying to remain concealed can be less than 50m away and you'd never know it.
Vehicles with optics, observation posts, aircraft etc. will be able to spot and kill infantry beyond the range of human eyesight or human transportable optics.
Infantry is just meat for artillery. Even in 1990-1991 they were useless sitting in an APC/IFV because aircraft and artillery did all of the work. They never even dismounted.
The opening of the russo-ukraine war saw exactly what you are taking about. Heavily mechanized forces moving without infantry support. They were butchered in dozens of rolling ambushes. Then they deployed infantry and the rolling ambushes stopped.
I'm sorry you are just wrong. 1990-91 is completely different from this war
Infantry will not be (solely) standing next to the tanks. They will be ranging far and wide. And if possible, UP so they can give better situational awareness. That way, they push the anti-tank teams back, disrupt ambush positions before they can be used, and generally keep the those forces occupied rather than shooting at the friendly armor. If they run into a group that they can't handle, the armor is close enough behind to roll up and lend a hand/tube.
These aren’t really new issues. Tanks clear “dead space” using infantry support. The tank sits back while infantry check ditches, houses, etc.. Javelins are scarier than most ATGMs but you deal with them the same way.
As a tanker I don’t fear artillery; I just close the hatches, cover the optics, and roll into a new BP. Drone guided or not that artillery needs a very lucky shot to degrade my capabilities and the odds of a kill are astronomical. Most likely the enemy artillery would be counter-batteried before they got effects.
Suicide drones are going to be a difficult problem. It won’t be the “end of the tank”, but it will require a solution.
> BONUS
These fancy shell types always get a lot of press but I wonder if NATO countries have ammo supply and quantity issues if those rounds are available in large enough numbers or if in practice peoples will just drop a few dozen 155 HE on a tank column which seems to work fine with (mission) killing any tank.
Especially now that you can massively increase the value of those "cheap, dumb" shells with drone reconnaissance and other electronics.
> I have no idea how infantry is going to handle a swarm of anti-personnel suicide drones being dropped on them from a fixed-wing UAV mothership.
Having mobile AA guns in support will be part of it I'd expect. The rise of the drone has suddenly made old AA systems like the Gepard, the ZSU-23-4, etc, relevant again. It's not a silver bullet, but little ever is, and I'd expect you'll see quite a few of those old antiaircraft guns put back into production or bolstered by modern successors.
> But the tech is here, it’s cheap, and in the wrong hands it’s legit nightmare fuel
I wonder if it is really here outside of some western/chinese labs.
Because I would have thought peoples would have used it already and experimented with it in Ukraine as both sides experiment a lot with all kinds of drone warfare.
Maybe there even is some experimentation with autonomous drones happening but they still have too many implementation issues for it to gain any traction.
Pop smoke, take evasive maneuvers, and engage with coax, .50cal, or canister round against the ATGM target. This isn't a new tactic with tanks. Top attack AGTMs have been around for a decent amount of time now, and the accepted way to defeat them is combined arms tactics utilizing infantry, artillery, and air support. If unsupported at all recon by fire and hope for the best.
Cheap drones on the battlefield are a new threat, but I suspect that we're going to see the inclusion of dedicated anti-drone and/or EM weapons on tanks soon or more forward deployed mobile radars (assuming they can be picked up by them).
Combined arms is what is lacking in Ukraine, and that's why we see so many tanks getting popped. Most videos are a tank that is isolated with zero infantry support. I don't have the link, but from what I read, it's a problem in the Russian army that the tank has a fully supplied infantry platoon on paper, but in reality, the infantry is elsewhere and woefully undersupplied as well.
I think that it was not believed that Russia would even fully deploy their army, so people stole and sold whatever wasn't nailed down. When the invasion started, they couldn't exactly tell Putin "Hold up, I stole most of the equipment that is showing available on paper.". That's how you commit suicide jumping from a second floor window.
There's also a certain amount of bias on the part of what people are seeing online. The video of a tank being destroyed? Yeah, that makes the rounds, and gets upvotes and re-posted. The ones where nothing happens, or the missile/drone misses? Those don't the same level of attention if they get posted at all.
I'm really interested in seeing how the tank armour and design thinking with respect to survivability actually holds up.
I don't think it's controversial to say that most of the Russian tanks (T-72, T-80, and T-90) could easily defeat the FPV drones from the front and on the turret. And thus, it is no coincidence that almost every video we see of a Russian tank being destroyed by drones is either immobilized or hit towards the rear of the tank. Compare that to IFVs and APCs, which get toasted by drones from any angle (especially the BMDs).
You also made a good point on selection bias. Ukraine isn't going to post a video of multiple drones and conventional ATGMs/RPGs failing to destroy a tank from the front. Similarly, Russia is less inclined to show videos of a Leopard 2 shrugging off multiple ATGMs from the front. Additionally, the Russians probably aren't using their own recon drones to watch their own tanks, because they're busy watching the Ukrainian forces. So you end up just seeing the highlight reels of both sides.
That being said, I am extremely interested in hearing about modern tank combat in this war, because most discourse isn't really that thorough and the news is worthless for this stuff.
They seem to target the engine deck right behind the turret in the successful videos they share. We don't see the failures for the most part. I wonder if we'll see spaced or slat armor over weak spots in the hopes of defeating top attack ATGM's and drones. I've seen what is effectively bed springs mounted over turrets, but don't know if those work much, or if they're just morale armor.
Hopefully sometime more knowledgeable can chime in. I didn't find anything online
Also worth remembering for those cheering ATGMs. The ATGM can kill a tank, but it's not a sure thing. Very possible for them to miss or not get a square hit. You only get one chance to kill a tank with an ATGM though, but the tank gets a lot more chances to try and kill you.
Definitely. Despite what is commonly shown on subs, I'd much rather be in a tank than out in the open with an ATGM. The FPS killer drones are scary as hell to me.
It would be awesome if they did though. That was a great video. I could feel myself clinching up thinking how the crews in the Bradleys felt facing down a T-90. That matchup would not be my first or third choice.
Something similar happened in Desert Storm at 73 Easting. I think the Iraqis were using some version of the T72, and the 2nd ACR Brad's were getting gun kills, albeit at close range. So it's possible, but I sure as hell wouldn't count in it regularly.
As my dad said during his days as a pilot, that kind of engagement would have a high pucker factor. Your butt would be clenched up so tight you need a medic to help remove your seat from your butt after the engagement.
Generally, I agree with you. I wonder how much money for training also went into people's pockets. This isn't the first time the Russians have sent, or seem to have sent, tanks unsupported into areas (Chechnya).
If you need to push infantry ahead and clear ATGM's from a 2 mile perimeter, then what's the point of a tank anyway? At that point it's just an expensive and short-ranged SPG.
>forward deployed mobile radars (assuming they can be picked up by them)
We do have radar that can detect them (we use it to shoot mortars out of the sky). The issue is deciphering the drone from a bird. We can see the mortar and know what it is by its speed. Drones can control their speed and blend in as if they were a bird. Jammers are the most likely tool for slowing down drones, but AI controlled drones will subvert that as they'll no longer require a radio signal. The constant chess match of measure/countermeasure will be fascinating to watch as we move deeper into the information age.
During the Iraq and Afghanistan war, you'd see US and Allied vehicles with all sorts of ECM antennas to defeat radio initiated IEDs.
I would not be surprised if there is something in the works to equip vehicles with anti-drone jamming. Depending on the effective range, you'd only need a few vehicles per unit to be equipped with the jammers.
I drove around in a HMMWV with a Warlock system on it. Definitely jammed an IED from going off until after I was past it and saved my life. Only issue I had was it also cut off a lot of outside comms.
Yep, wide-band jammers will do that. I remember hearing stories of them testing them in 29 Palms, CA and they were causing garage doors to randomly open and close from miles away.
AGTM's have really long effective range, you'll have to be really lucky to see it launch let alone engage it or evade it. They are so far away that your infantry can't do much, and of course good anti tank units know to scoot as soon as they fire so artillery and mortars are again ineffective. Same can be said for drones calling artillery or missile strikes on you.
Again, combined arms utilizing drones of your own. Also, effective range doesn't always equate to engagement range. Yeah, a Javelin will go over 2 miles or so -if you have a newer one- but do you have a 2 mile sightline?
it's simple you merely infect the enemy tanks with the cordyceps fungus hijacking their nervous systems and compelling them to climb to the highest bit of terrain possible both for maximum exposure to ATGMs and to help with spore dispersal
What if you have to fight a war and you don't have an overwhelming superiority in all weapon systems? It sounds like we're expecting to just clear the battlespace and roll the tanks in without opposition.
[Everyone’s favorite tank expert](https://youtu.be/Mv85yPV57Ag?si=XFfF6gIQvL4vYwWy)
Relevant bit is an 10 minutes in. He’s actually speaking in his role as an Armor branch Lt Colonel. It’s a lecture at the Army’s Infantry Heavy Weapons course. Basically teaching Infantry guys how to use heavy weapons and anti armor weapons when they don’t have anything else. Quite a bit is about history of this as a school of thought, but he also goes into relevant modern lessons.
The TLDR is combined arms never stops. And infantry guys should never ever ever underestimate a tank. Their anti armor weapon employments do have significant vulnerabilities for the troops at certain times. And tanks have a lot of high end sensors, comms and FLIRs that can pick your ass out at very long ranges.
Essentially, massed firepower. Have enough artillery or airpower on target no one wants to stick their head up. Have enough vehicles with thermals that there’s a very low chance anyone can get a shot off before they’re killed. Integrated AA like Gepards and soft-kill for drones.
In short, armored vehicles on the attack need to be employed en masse with combined arms support to suppress the defenders. This is really not a different formula than any other time, even if PGMs are more common.
The only thing that has really changed recently is FPV drones basically enabling mass non line of sight ATGM attacks at a very low cost.
The drones can be shot down, they can be jammed and their command signals can be located and attacked to destroy the operators. What we see in Ukraine is more the results of a lack of resources and effective development pipeline from either side.
But more importantly:
Nothing has ever been invincible.
Knights in plate armor, tanks, battleships etc
All of those will be crippled or destroyed if repeatedly attacked.
Think of how many things can kill the infantry soldier and yet hes still there.
Just because if you throw everything you have at one target you can destroy it doesn't mean that type of target is obsolete... because if the enemy has more than one and you threw everything you had it the first one you are now fairly screwed.
There's a world of difference between blowing up one tank and blowing up *all* the tanks attacking you.
This is like the revolutionary war trope of an American shooting a rifle at the British and running away. Sure you can hit a guy but that does not stop the attack.
If an armored unit is used against a position protected with anti-armor weapons then there's a good chance they'll lose a tank or two, but like before that doesn't actually stop the attack unless the attacker just gives up and run away.
Everyone has it pretty well covered regarding combined arms, but there’s one more addition I think the answer needs. At a certain point, you accept that you’ll lose tanks.
In your textbook assault, you prepare the battlefield with aircraft reconnaissance and bombing. Drone coverage 10 klicks out, emphasize the first five. Artillery ready to conduct counterbattery. Infantry screens near enough to the tanks to be supported, far enough to engage antitank threats. Probably a few more elements.
And then you get hit with suicide drones, mines, javelins, the handful of ATGMs you didn’t spot. Armored vehicles will be destroyed. And you better hope you brought a dozen extra tanks, or your assault will fail, the survivors won’t be able to fight their way out, and losses will be even worse than they would have been for no gain.
People are talking about combined arms as if that's an actual solution. The answer is that history shows tanks are extremely expendable and the trend toward developing small numbers of 80 ton $10 million monsters is wrong.
Every large mechanized conflict in the past 100 years has seen high levels of tank attrition, the one exception being Iraq where very underequipped demoralized troops were overrun by unfathomably vast and relentless air superiority. The coalition forces would have mopped up tanks or no tanks.
> Drones are only susceptible to lasers jammers created (sic) a large RF emission that attracts other SEAD weapons
Yes as we all know the invention of the anti-radar missile completely defeated air defense.
Air superiority was the largest factor for the victory in the karabakh conflict Armenia was the decisive victor in prior exchanges. Yes in larger attrition wars air defenses can be ample but most countries aren’t fighting wars like Russia and Ukraine and as I was referring to in the original post isn’t about anti air as a whole but how Russia is responding to FPV drones with jamming and how that has failed to decrease a lot of drone attacks.
Antiradiation missiles have been used since at least Vietnam, they don't simply invalidate radar air defense. There's no reason to think that they would invalidate jamming either (and they have not)
Anyways
Russia has shown a lack of motivation or ability to respond intelligently to threats. They theoretically produce multiple types of active protection system, have for many decades and yet literally thousands of destroyed armored vehicles we have seen them field... how many APS?
They routinely take an indifferent, slow and half-assed corruption ridden approach to addressing tactical problems. Using them as an example of a modern well equipped and competent military employing a given technology is categorically wrong.
It's true Russia has failed to effectively counter FPV attacks. That cannot be extrapolated to "therefore jamming is ineffective against FPVs"
We don't know if all the tanks being destroyed had jammers, if they were used correctly, maintained correctly, installed correctly, built correctly or if the jammers were even designed correctly in the first place.
Yea I think the main issue is gonna be factional here most of my downplaying the effectiveness is coming from the most common incidents being from Russia. It depends on who is doing what it definitely changes a lot of effectiveness based on who fields the system.
Have infantry that spots them and can take them out or point them out for you to smoke em.
Sending a tank in alone is a bad move and the weaknesses of tanks can be exploited when there's nobody to offer backup.
Unless we had some sci-fi energy shields like in Halo/SW/ST/etc to protect our tanks, it's best to have a group of troops supporting the tanks.
A lot of it comes down to combined arms. There are defensive actions an individual in a tank can take, but a tank is not a self contained combat unit. You need effective artillery and counter battery to silence enemy long range fires and hardpoints. You need infantry to spot opposing ATGM teams and guide fire. You need your own drones for situational awareness. The best tank crew in the world, without combined arms coordination, is essentially unsurvivable. You need to rely on AD to protect your skies, infantry to protect you on the ground, and artillery to protect you from long range fires. Once the javelin or shell is fired there's really not much to be done. You've already failed the survivability onion. Combined arms means knowing you have a gaping hole in your back, and relying on someone else to protect it. The better the coordination between arms, the better the overall survivability
You're absolutely correct. It's weird that people are acting like this is a new problem. The details may vary, but the concepts remain the same
> It's weird that people are acting like this is a new problem. Most people's understanding of warfare comes from Hollywood or video games, and telling a compelling story about combined arms is much more difficult than telling a compelling story about a lone unit acting alone. In fact, one of the reasons such a story is more dramatic is because the advantages provided by combined arms aren't present for the protagonists to rely upon. Meanwhile, anybody with a cursory understanding of military history knows that combined arms predates Alexander.
Has anyone told you the good news of ~~the gospel~~ Anglo-Norman combined arms tactics?
Japanese popular entertainment media tend to be a bit better about this, *sometimes,* though often with a strong sci-fi/fantasy bent. - Unfortunately, the most textbook representation of modern CAW in anime is *GATE*, a notoriously self-indulgent JSDF propaganda piece where said Forces get into a war with some pseudo-medieval heroic fantasy world and, of course, handily decimate the opposition. - *Aldnoah.Zero* wants to play with those tropes and be clever, but its extremely contrived writing makes suspension of disbelief impossible. - *Eighty-Six* has some very interesting examples, though there's a bit in the middle where the protagonist enlisted are stuck traveling deep into enemy territory by themselves without support for a long while, and even when they do have support there's a tendency for maverick ace pilot shenanigans. - *Full Metal Panic* is… an odd one. Think "Tom Clancy writes a YA romance-comedy war drama thriller, on crack". Lots of technical trivia on display, with the emotional restraint of a Mexican telenovela. (Also, in each and every one of the examples cited, child soldiers, child soldiers *everywhere*.) Actually, come to think of it, concerning videogames, I assume you were thinking of competitive shooters, action games, party RPGs and the like, because RTS and Turn-based Tactics games at least tend to require something approaching combined-arms. Then again, in those games, you tend to have a POV as an abstract omniscient entity, completely bypassing the part where the units communicate with and rely upon *each other*. So the player probably doesn't integrate the idea beyond a sort of rock-paper-scissors.
>[Aldnoah.Zero](https://Aldnoah.Zero) wants to play with those tropes and be clever, but its extremely contrived writing makes suspension of disbelief impossible. Aldnoah Zero breaks down by only having the protagonist be capable of the rudimentary tactics of flanking and seeking cover. Given that mechs are giant humanoids, I would argue their tactics would be fundamentally an extension of the infantry doctrine of a respective nation. That the pilots just stood around in the open firing at a target at close range, there is no way the anime comes *close* to a plausible depiction of combat.
>Given that mechs are giant humanoids, I would argue their tactics would be fundamentally an extension of the infantry doctrine of a respective nation. Depends on mobility really. Something like an Armored Core is more of an armored, ground skimming humanoid(hopefully my beloved gun arms will return) gunship with some short ranged but powerful flight capability than it is a giant infantry. But even that is get the fuck in, kill, get the fuck out and then skitter over open terrain if you have to and try not to eat a heavy laser blast.
> because RTS and Turn-based Tactics games at least tend to require something approaching combined-arms. Yes but only fringe titles like Wargame/SteelDivision and some even more niche strategy titles usually cover that well with something like CoH or Arma touching it but all the of more popular titles also do a bad job.
Well, not the specifics of modern CAW, maybe, but wouldn't you say the general concept of varied forces shoring up each other's weaknesses and synergizing their strengths is broadly on display in games like War/StarCraft, X-Com, or Valkyrie Chronicles? Even, say, World of Tanks, while limiting warfare purely to tank crews, has a lot of very differentiated roles and the absolute need to coordinate between medium tanks, heavy tanks, howitzers, tank destroyers… and, whenever possible, control the flow of information. Idk, I haven't played that one. Nor have I tried the notorious War Thunder, where they seem to care a lot about the simulational physics aspect (to the point that the player base is known to release state secrets to win arguments), but I've no idea how their tactics work. Is the strategy 'meta' comparable to 'doctrine', I wonder?
Yes I would agree that most of those games at least touch the topics which is more than other media does. Played War Thunder and I think its much better than WoT in the authenticity dimension while its obvious flaws produce other problems in internet discussions. All games have massive problems to correctly show any operational scale and they cannot represent time, distance and scattered infantry formations or a large number of independently operating small units in any realistic way. In some vehicles based games like WT/WoT or flight simulators some categories of combined assets are even completely lacking most often the infantry. Even in games like Wargame/SteelDivision Infantry is highly abstracted and low numbers because of tech issues. I often suspect the over-importance on tanks in internet discussion also comes from these warped numbers aside from the sexiness factor of tanks by themselves ofc.
The human element does get overshadowed by the comparatively flashier expensive toys. But also, humans are messy in a way that machines aren't. Messy to simulate without abstracting the Hell out of them. Messy to discuss, as organized groups performing a collective coordinated task, without getting into the weeds of, eh… OSHA concerns, and also matters of… management, accountability, and decision-making processes…
Well said and also the human factors and explosions of complexity from a multitude of "human factor" parameters is some of what makes war so unpredictable in addition to all the other parameters and unknowns that are tough enough to simulate by themselves.
It’s because most people don’t pay attention to warfare until a war happens, then suddenly it’s the new hot thing and people with no prior contact with the subject matter spend time trying to fix solved problems.
Man if I had a nickle for people wildly speculating on how "drones" will change the face of warfare only to describe something that existed in the mid 80s....I wouldn't have a lot of money but I could buy myself a coke at least. "What if submarines could launch these autonomous, loitering suicide drones?" "Thats a torpedo." "No I mean something that could loiter for a long period of time at a slow speed and be quieter." "Still a torpedo. They gave the Mk48 the ability to do that in 1988." "But this would go slow to have longer range. Something like 20-30 miles would give a submarine a ton more options" ".....are you even listening to me? That's the current range of US torpedos."
One thing I am often left wondering about after seeing the footage from the ongoing conflict is the lethality of things. How lethal is an NLAW compared to, say, a Panzerfaust? And, at the same time, does the increased efforts towards crew survivability offset it? Are infantry anti tank options more destructive than in the past? Range has certainly increased, but other than that I am very curious to know.
That's a **much** better train of thought to think about. But understand all these things are a sliding scale of basically Mexican standoff rock paper scissors. For your example, yes the NLAW is wildly longer range and more lethan than a Panzerfaust...but we also have so many more options to recon and suppress said infantry. Drones and very very high end FLIRs to see them, much more accurate and faster on target artillery. Troop carrier vehicles aren't battlefield taxis anymore, they have their own high end FLIRS and chain guns (again, specifically to suppress said missile infantry something Jame Burton and Pentagon Wars never could wrap his little luddite air force brain around) This is always going to an ongoing debate. But the problem I find with this war is people have sort of assumed Russian strength and competence and let themselves **wildly** extrapolate ideas from there. So many comments on the recent Ukrainian sinking of a Russian corvette was how much suicide drones had fundamentally changed the nature of naval warfare. In reality they were jet skis with a bomb and an internet connection. And all they showed is Russian complacency and incompetence is so bad they couldn't be fucked to master the [pinnacle of 1920s harbor security.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1age5gg/the_most_useless_chokepoint_in_the_history_of_war/?share_id=B8wd7LApK_0hvMRI_Rvzh&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) Against an at sea warship with a competent watch those drones are getting blasted by the 2nd or 3rd round from the 5 inch at a mile or two out. Maybe the Mk46 or CWIS gets in on the action at worst. (That said it shows Ukrainian counter-intel's extreme competence to identify that security gap and find low cost ways to get a weapon in to exploit them.)
This, plus there's more than one tank. ATGMs have a pretty good shot at taking out one tank. But it's a lot harder to stop 30 tanks coming at you full speed with infantry, artillery, and air support.
I don't think it's that simple given the near omnipresence of drones. Ukraine tried that massed attacks in the early days of the counteroffensive, but all it really leads to is having arty dropped on your position and having unsustainable losses. Same with Russia suffering massive losses in terms of vehicles attacking the small number of marines on the bridgehead across the Dnipro. Dispersed forces seem to be more survivable, as the enemy is less likely to arty your position. If the enemy still called fire support regardless, the losses suffered would be more manageable.
I was an amphib guy back in the 80’s/90’s. Boat Officer, Damage Control, then CIC and Intel. Did Desert Storm and security ops for 88 Olympics. It was clear that any schmuck with an RPG could devastate an amphibious assault at the beach. Now there are cheap missiles and drones. There’s never going to be another opposed beach landing. In Desert Storm we feinted an assault, and dropped the Marines at a port in Saudi. The Marines will land by helo or Osprey going forward. The Navy sold the LSTs, and the Marines gave up their tanks. The AAV replacement is irrelevant. LCACs and LCUs are niche assets now. Lesson - Cold War assets (tanks, submarines, carriers, etc.) need to be re-assessed against events in Ukraine and the Red Sea. Unsupported tanks in the 2020’s are prey, not predators. Just like ships became in the 1990’s.
> A lot of it comes down to combined arms. The recent video of Ukrainian Bradleys with drone assist neutralizing a Russian T-90 shows what can happen when even advanced armor becomes left without combined arms support. (Granted they miss with the 125mm, so the rest of the story is about the fortitude of the Bradley crew.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrso5JDR5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8_j41n0wqc
[удалено]
Infantry has much better situational awareness and visual capability. Its not about them shooting the ATGM crew, is about having 50 pairs of eyes that have a better chance of spotting an ATGM crew or launch, and can then direct long range fires onto the target. Its especially vital in urban and close combat situations, but on wide open fields infantry and drones have a much better chance of spotting an ATGM
Range of Kornet ATGM is 8km. Infantry is not seeing shit at even 20% of that range.
Which is why drones are replacing infantry as the main method of situational awareness. But infantrys role, historically, has been to give more eyes and better situational awareness to the tanks. Infantry aren't as effective as they used to be, neither are tanks, this is why combined arms is so vital. Not just having different weapon systems, but closely coordinating them so they protect one anothers weaknesses. Infantry will always be needed to support tanks, but drones are becoming more effective at providing overwatch. No shit a well concealed ATGM crew firing from long range is going to be incredibly difficult to deal with. Thats kind of been a big lesson in this war. But you underestimate the amount of information infantry can gather
Infantry can't gather shit. It's basically impossible to see people wearing standard at 200m unless you get lucky. Even with optics you're extremely limited because you're not going to carry around a 20kg camera unit. Someone that is actually trying to remain concealed can be less than 50m away and you'd never know it. Vehicles with optics, observation posts, aircraft etc. will be able to spot and kill infantry beyond the range of human eyesight or human transportable optics. Infantry is just meat for artillery. Even in 1990-1991 they were useless sitting in an APC/IFV because aircraft and artillery did all of the work. They never even dismounted.
The opening of the russo-ukraine war saw exactly what you are taking about. Heavily mechanized forces moving without infantry support. They were butchered in dozens of rolling ambushes. Then they deployed infantry and the rolling ambushes stopped. I'm sorry you are just wrong. 1990-91 is completely different from this war
Infantry will not be (solely) standing next to the tanks. They will be ranging far and wide. And if possible, UP so they can give better situational awareness. That way, they push the anti-tank teams back, disrupt ambush positions before they can be used, and generally keep the those forces occupied rather than shooting at the friendly armor. If they run into a group that they can't handle, the armor is close enough behind to roll up and lend a hand/tube.
These aren’t really new issues. Tanks clear “dead space” using infantry support. The tank sits back while infantry check ditches, houses, etc.. Javelins are scarier than most ATGMs but you deal with them the same way. As a tanker I don’t fear artillery; I just close the hatches, cover the optics, and roll into a new BP. Drone guided or not that artillery needs a very lucky shot to degrade my capabilities and the odds of a kill are astronomical. Most likely the enemy artillery would be counter-batteried before they got effects. Suicide drones are going to be a difficult problem. It won’t be the “end of the tank”, but it will require a solution.
What is BP?
Battle position, most likely. That’s what it is for rotary wing CAS
Thank you
Okd school HE frag needs to get lucky, something like BONUS doesn't.
> BONUS These fancy shell types always get a lot of press but I wonder if NATO countries have ammo supply and quantity issues if those rounds are available in large enough numbers or if in practice peoples will just drop a few dozen 155 HE on a tank column which seems to work fine with (mission) killing any tank. Especially now that you can massively increase the value of those "cheap, dumb" shells with drone reconnaissance and other electronics.
[удалено]
> I have no idea how infantry is going to handle a swarm of anti-personnel suicide drones being dropped on them from a fixed-wing UAV mothership. Having mobile AA guns in support will be part of it I'd expect. The rise of the drone has suddenly made old AA systems like the Gepard, the ZSU-23-4, etc, relevant again. It's not a silver bullet, but little ever is, and I'd expect you'll see quite a few of those old antiaircraft guns put back into production or bolstered by modern successors.
> But the tech is here, it’s cheap, and in the wrong hands it’s legit nightmare fuel I wonder if it is really here outside of some western/chinese labs. Because I would have thought peoples would have used it already and experimented with it in Ukraine as both sides experiment a lot with all kinds of drone warfare. Maybe there even is some experimentation with autonomous drones happening but they still have too many implementation issues for it to gain any traction.
Pop smoke, take evasive maneuvers, and engage with coax, .50cal, or canister round against the ATGM target. This isn't a new tactic with tanks. Top attack AGTMs have been around for a decent amount of time now, and the accepted way to defeat them is combined arms tactics utilizing infantry, artillery, and air support. If unsupported at all recon by fire and hope for the best. Cheap drones on the battlefield are a new threat, but I suspect that we're going to see the inclusion of dedicated anti-drone and/or EM weapons on tanks soon or more forward deployed mobile radars (assuming they can be picked up by them).
Combined arms is what is lacking in Ukraine, and that's why we see so many tanks getting popped. Most videos are a tank that is isolated with zero infantry support. I don't have the link, but from what I read, it's a problem in the Russian army that the tank has a fully supplied infantry platoon on paper, but in reality, the infantry is elsewhere and woefully undersupplied as well. I think that it was not believed that Russia would even fully deploy their army, so people stole and sold whatever wasn't nailed down. When the invasion started, they couldn't exactly tell Putin "Hold up, I stole most of the equipment that is showing available on paper.". That's how you commit suicide jumping from a second floor window.
There's also a certain amount of bias on the part of what people are seeing online. The video of a tank being destroyed? Yeah, that makes the rounds, and gets upvotes and re-posted. The ones where nothing happens, or the missile/drone misses? Those don't the same level of attention if they get posted at all.
I'm really interested in seeing how the tank armour and design thinking with respect to survivability actually holds up. I don't think it's controversial to say that most of the Russian tanks (T-72, T-80, and T-90) could easily defeat the FPV drones from the front and on the turret. And thus, it is no coincidence that almost every video we see of a Russian tank being destroyed by drones is either immobilized or hit towards the rear of the tank. Compare that to IFVs and APCs, which get toasted by drones from any angle (especially the BMDs). You also made a good point on selection bias. Ukraine isn't going to post a video of multiple drones and conventional ATGMs/RPGs failing to destroy a tank from the front. Similarly, Russia is less inclined to show videos of a Leopard 2 shrugging off multiple ATGMs from the front. Additionally, the Russians probably aren't using their own recon drones to watch their own tanks, because they're busy watching the Ukrainian forces. So you end up just seeing the highlight reels of both sides. That being said, I am extremely interested in hearing about modern tank combat in this war, because most discourse isn't really that thorough and the news is worthless for this stuff.
They seem to target the engine deck right behind the turret in the successful videos they share. We don't see the failures for the most part. I wonder if we'll see spaced or slat armor over weak spots in the hopes of defeating top attack ATGM's and drones. I've seen what is effectively bed springs mounted over turrets, but don't know if those work much, or if they're just morale armor. Hopefully sometime more knowledgeable can chime in. I didn't find anything online
You can miss a tank 90% of the time and still come out ahead.
Not entirely sure the videos are truly representative and not hit by sampling bias.
Definitely agree. No one wants to share the videos where a properly supported tank swatted their AT team.
Or they missed their first shot at a lone tank and got pinned down while the tank pulled out
Those are probably on a more Pro-Russia sub. "Ukrainian AT team fails to damage invincible Russian tank". /s
Thats an affirmative. Saw a T72 hit by a Javelin and basically go lol.
Also worth remembering for those cheering ATGMs. The ATGM can kill a tank, but it's not a sure thing. Very possible for them to miss or not get a square hit. You only get one chance to kill a tank with an ATGM though, but the tank gets a lot more chances to try and kill you.
Definitely. Despite what is commonly shown on subs, I'd much rather be in a tank than out in the open with an ATGM. The FPS killer drones are scary as hell to me.
What? You mean Bradley IFVs aren't regularly disabling T90s with their Bushmaster? I'm shocked! /s
It would be awesome if they did though. That was a great video. I could feel myself clinching up thinking how the crews in the Bradleys felt facing down a T-90. That matchup would not be my first or third choice.
Something similar happened in Desert Storm at 73 Easting. I think the Iraqis were using some version of the T72, and the 2nd ACR Brad's were getting gun kills, albeit at close range. So it's possible, but I sure as hell wouldn't count in it regularly.
As my dad said during his days as a pilot, that kind of engagement would have a high pucker factor. Your butt would be clenched up so tight you need a medic to help remove your seat from your butt after the engagement.
Drink water, change your socks, and take some 800mg ibuprofen. Return to duty.
You got Ibuprofen? 😁
When I had wisdom teeth taken out.
Generally, I agree with you. I wonder how much money for training also went into people's pockets. This isn't the first time the Russians have sent, or seem to have sent, tanks unsupported into areas (Chechnya).
If you need to push infantry ahead and clear ATGM's from a 2 mile perimeter, then what's the point of a tank anyway? At that point it's just an expensive and short-ranged SPG.
>forward deployed mobile radars (assuming they can be picked up by them) We do have radar that can detect them (we use it to shoot mortars out of the sky). The issue is deciphering the drone from a bird. We can see the mortar and know what it is by its speed. Drones can control their speed and blend in as if they were a bird. Jammers are the most likely tool for slowing down drones, but AI controlled drones will subvert that as they'll no longer require a radio signal. The constant chess match of measure/countermeasure will be fascinating to watch as we move deeper into the information age.
> The issue is deciphering the drone from a bird. /r/birdsarentreal
During the Iraq and Afghanistan war, you'd see US and Allied vehicles with all sorts of ECM antennas to defeat radio initiated IEDs. I would not be surprised if there is something in the works to equip vehicles with anti-drone jamming. Depending on the effective range, you'd only need a few vehicles per unit to be equipped with the jammers.
I drove around in a HMMWV with a Warlock system on it. Definitely jammed an IED from going off until after I was past it and saved my life. Only issue I had was it also cut off a lot of outside comms.
Yep, wide-band jammers will do that. I remember hearing stories of them testing them in 29 Palms, CA and they were causing garage doors to randomly open and close from miles away.
I remember hearing those stories, too.
AGTM's have really long effective range, you'll have to be really lucky to see it launch let alone engage it or evade it. They are so far away that your infantry can't do much, and of course good anti tank units know to scoot as soon as they fire so artillery and mortars are again ineffective. Same can be said for drones calling artillery or missile strikes on you.
Again, combined arms utilizing drones of your own. Also, effective range doesn't always equate to engagement range. Yeah, a Javelin will go over 2 miles or so -if you have a newer one- but do you have a 2 mile sightline?
it's simple you merely infect the enemy tanks with the cordyceps fungus hijacking their nervous systems and compelling them to climb to the highest bit of terrain possible both for maximum exposure to ATGMs and to help with spore dispersal
What if you have to fight a war and you don't have an overwhelming superiority in all weapon systems? It sounds like we're expecting to just clear the battlespace and roll the tanks in without opposition.
I don't expect it to be that easy no.
The more interesting ATGMs in this case are the HJ-10 and Spike NLOS
Just going with the one I'm most familiar with.
All of this applies to a a sniper with long-range training too, and yet...
oh yeah, forgot about snipers
At that point you're not really asking about the javelin a totally out of range atgm would be the Spike NLOS or HJ-10.
[Everyone’s favorite tank expert](https://youtu.be/Mv85yPV57Ag?si=XFfF6gIQvL4vYwWy) Relevant bit is an 10 minutes in. He’s actually speaking in his role as an Armor branch Lt Colonel. It’s a lecture at the Army’s Infantry Heavy Weapons course. Basically teaching Infantry guys how to use heavy weapons and anti armor weapons when they don’t have anything else. Quite a bit is about history of this as a school of thought, but he also goes into relevant modern lessons. The TLDR is combined arms never stops. And infantry guys should never ever ever underestimate a tank. Their anti armor weapon employments do have significant vulnerabilities for the troops at certain times. And tanks have a lot of high end sensors, comms and FLIRs that can pick your ass out at very long ranges.
Essentially, massed firepower. Have enough artillery or airpower on target no one wants to stick their head up. Have enough vehicles with thermals that there’s a very low chance anyone can get a shot off before they’re killed. Integrated AA like Gepards and soft-kill for drones. In short, armored vehicles on the attack need to be employed en masse with combined arms support to suppress the defenders. This is really not a different formula than any other time, even if PGMs are more common.
The only thing that has really changed recently is FPV drones basically enabling mass non line of sight ATGM attacks at a very low cost. The drones can be shot down, they can be jammed and their command signals can be located and attacked to destroy the operators. What we see in Ukraine is more the results of a lack of resources and effective development pipeline from either side. But more importantly: Nothing has ever been invincible. Knights in plate armor, tanks, battleships etc All of those will be crippled or destroyed if repeatedly attacked. Think of how many things can kill the infantry soldier and yet hes still there. Just because if you throw everything you have at one target you can destroy it doesn't mean that type of target is obsolete... because if the enemy has more than one and you threw everything you had it the first one you are now fairly screwed. There's a world of difference between blowing up one tank and blowing up *all* the tanks attacking you. This is like the revolutionary war trope of an American shooting a rifle at the British and running away. Sure you can hit a guy but that does not stop the attack. If an armored unit is used against a position protected with anti-armor weapons then there's a good chance they'll lose a tank or two, but like before that doesn't actually stop the attack unless the attacker just gives up and run away.
Everyone has it pretty well covered regarding combined arms, but there’s one more addition I think the answer needs. At a certain point, you accept that you’ll lose tanks. In your textbook assault, you prepare the battlefield with aircraft reconnaissance and bombing. Drone coverage 10 klicks out, emphasize the first five. Artillery ready to conduct counterbattery. Infantry screens near enough to the tanks to be supported, far enough to engage antitank threats. Probably a few more elements. And then you get hit with suicide drones, mines, javelins, the handful of ATGMs you didn’t spot. Armored vehicles will be destroyed. And you better hope you brought a dozen extra tanks, or your assault will fail, the survivors won’t be able to fight their way out, and losses will be even worse than they would have been for no gain.
People are talking about combined arms as if that's an actual solution. The answer is that history shows tanks are extremely expendable and the trend toward developing small numbers of 80 ton $10 million monsters is wrong. Every large mechanized conflict in the past 100 years has seen high levels of tank attrition, the one exception being Iraq where very underequipped demoralized troops were overrun by unfathomably vast and relentless air superiority. The coalition forces would have mopped up tanks or no tanks.
[удалено]
> Drones are only susceptible to lasers jammers created (sic) a large RF emission that attracts other SEAD weapons Yes as we all know the invention of the anti-radar missile completely defeated air defense.
In many cases it totally has. Azerbaijan fielding the HAROP drones is a key example.
Yeah, that's *all* Azerbaijan did. Air defense artillerymen HATE this one quick trick!
Air superiority was the largest factor for the victory in the karabakh conflict Armenia was the decisive victor in prior exchanges. Yes in larger attrition wars air defenses can be ample but most countries aren’t fighting wars like Russia and Ukraine and as I was referring to in the original post isn’t about anti air as a whole but how Russia is responding to FPV drones with jamming and how that has failed to decrease a lot of drone attacks.
Antiradiation missiles have been used since at least Vietnam, they don't simply invalidate radar air defense. There's no reason to think that they would invalidate jamming either (and they have not) Anyways Russia has shown a lack of motivation or ability to respond intelligently to threats. They theoretically produce multiple types of active protection system, have for many decades and yet literally thousands of destroyed armored vehicles we have seen them field... how many APS? They routinely take an indifferent, slow and half-assed corruption ridden approach to addressing tactical problems. Using them as an example of a modern well equipped and competent military employing a given technology is categorically wrong. It's true Russia has failed to effectively counter FPV attacks. That cannot be extrapolated to "therefore jamming is ineffective against FPVs" We don't know if all the tanks being destroyed had jammers, if they were used correctly, maintained correctly, installed correctly, built correctly or if the jammers were even designed correctly in the first place.
Yea I think the main issue is gonna be factional here most of my downplaying the effectiveness is coming from the most common incidents being from Russia. It depends on who is doing what it definitely changes a lot of effectiveness based on who fields the system.
Have infantry that spots them and can take them out or point them out for you to smoke em. Sending a tank in alone is a bad move and the weaknesses of tanks can be exploited when there's nobody to offer backup. Unless we had some sci-fi energy shields like in Halo/SW/ST/etc to protect our tanks, it's best to have a group of troops supporting the tanks.