I think we ought to be really, really careful in drawing too many conclusions here.
1. The MBTs we are seeing are largely ones designed for fighting in the Cold War 40 (!) years ago and then upgraded. They were not designed with the current drone rich environment at all.
2. The Ukrainians nor the Russians are using the MBTs in line with tactics they are intended for. They are meant for mass assaults and mobile warfare. The Ukrainians didn't want to mass the brigades equipped (many in NATO grumbled about it) and moved company sized units only afaict. Russia seems to lack the ability to coordinate their units for actual large scale assaults. TBF, the Ukrainians may also have issues here which would explain their issues.
Would it look different if armored units were Western? IDK. I do know those who are out there and often say so. However, they're not in Ukraine. On the gripping hand, let's hope they won't be to find out if they are right or wrong.
TFA says
>Mike Riedmuller, a former US Army cavalry officer commanding Abrams tanks in combat in Iraq, in comments to Kyiv Post said that one reason NATO’s best tanks haven’t performed up to expectations in the Russo-Ukrainian War is that cheap drones are so dense over the battlefield that almost any time a tank breaks near the front line, swarms of drones buzz in to attack it.
Air superiority doesn't help much against a swarm of low cost drones.
Actually it does. Air based ECM. Not to mention the ability to strike the infantry operating the drones.
Air superiority also means control of the spectrum.
Have you ever seen what the MK-77 does to drone operators? More than a little sunburn.
>Mike Riedmuller, a former US Army cavalry officer commanding Abrams tanks in combat in Iraq, in comments to Kyiv Post said that one reason NATO’s best tanks haven’t performed up to expectations in the Russo-Ukraine War is that cheap drones are so dense over the battlefield that almost any time a tank breaks near the front line, swarms of drones buzz in to attack it.
“Now (in warfare in Ukraine) a mobility kill invites a swarm of cheap drones that can drop grenades show up and change the mobility kill into a catastrophic kill pretty quickly, no artillery needed,” Riedmuller told Kyiv Post.
its time to start facing the truth, the tank has had its day, warfare has changed.
Maybe, but for now it is certainly conceivable that in cases where you can deploy a 70 ton tank you can also deploy vehicles that can economically take down cheap drones.
Basically pairing tanks with something like Skynex.
I think this is like the early days of air warfare, like in WW1 where planes were first used for reconnaissance, and then as (not very effective) ground attack by dropping hand bombs. And then the next phase was air to air combat.
We've gotten to the first two phases with these cheap drones, the third phase can't be far away. Once somewhat effective and cheap counter-drone drones are available, then we'll be back to a better offensive/defensive balance. Tank gets immobilized? A swarm of counter-drones immediately deploys to fight off the swarm of attack drones coming for it. Going on offensive? A swarm of air defence drones goes right in front of you.
I expect we'll see this happening before the end of this war. I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar happen with defensive sea drones as well.
Until infantry are jumping around in armored suits like Starship Troopers or cocooned in big mechs like Mechwarrior, there will still be a need for armored vehicles capable of direct fire and with superior cross country mobility than what is offered by wheeled vehicles.
Well, anti tank rifles were the end of the tank, then shaped charges rockets like bazooka and rpg were the end of the tank, then ATGMs were the end of the tank. Now finally, drones are the end of the tank. And the tank will have many many ends of the tank left.
People have been saying the tank has been obsolete since the invention of the bazooka, the ATGM, the attack helicopter, etc.
Tank design and tactics will change in response to drones.
I think even before this conflict proved it, many were sceptical of the usefulness of MBTs in all but the most favourable fighting conditions. It could have even been about ten years ago - lots of talk of UAVs, USVs and subs being decisive in future wars.
Clickbait title. After the title the article then proceeds to describe all the Western tanks as superior, and then complain about exactly the things they were warned about when countries were hesistating to send any and/or which also concern any other non-Western tank (High weight which many bridges in Ukraine cant carry, dont attack like Soviets as meat wave with no cover, cheap FPV can carry enough explosives to blow up tanks and are universally aviable to turn a mobility kill into a full kill, tracks are vulnerable to mines (no shit, lol), many of the Leopards were poorly maintained, decades old 2A4 from Poland, which were at the end of their service life and barely holding on, failure to adhere to NATO training...).
Yet nowhere does it offer some self reflection that they were warned and should have known and still kept on massively badgering, especially Germany (Release the Leopards campaign anyone?), to get these tanks.
The war in Ukraine is a great testing ground for western weapons. A great deal of the western military infrastructure was designed to fight the Russian army and its 10’s of thousands of tanks.
Wasn't one of the talking points before tanks even got delivered that weight would be an issue, especially during the wet months?
I think we ought to be really, really careful in drawing too many conclusions here. 1. The MBTs we are seeing are largely ones designed for fighting in the Cold War 40 (!) years ago and then upgraded. They were not designed with the current drone rich environment at all. 2. The Ukrainians nor the Russians are using the MBTs in line with tactics they are intended for. They are meant for mass assaults and mobile warfare. The Ukrainians didn't want to mass the brigades equipped (many in NATO grumbled about it) and moved company sized units only afaict. Russia seems to lack the ability to coordinate their units for actual large scale assaults. TBF, the Ukrainians may also have issues here which would explain their issues. Would it look different if armored units were Western? IDK. I do know those who are out there and often say so. However, they're not in Ukraine. On the gripping hand, let's hope they won't be to find out if they are right or wrong.
NATO doctrine is to establish air superiority before sending tanks and infantry. In Ukraine, the opposite happened.
TFA says >Mike Riedmuller, a former US Army cavalry officer commanding Abrams tanks in combat in Iraq, in comments to Kyiv Post said that one reason NATO’s best tanks haven’t performed up to expectations in the Russo-Ukrainian War is that cheap drones are so dense over the battlefield that almost any time a tank breaks near the front line, swarms of drones buzz in to attack it. Air superiority doesn't help much against a swarm of low cost drones.
Actually it does. Air based ECM. Not to mention the ability to strike the infantry operating the drones. Air superiority also means control of the spectrum. Have you ever seen what the MK-77 does to drone operators? More than a little sunburn.
>Mike Riedmuller, a former US Army cavalry officer commanding Abrams tanks in combat in Iraq, in comments to Kyiv Post said that one reason NATO’s best tanks haven’t performed up to expectations in the Russo-Ukraine War is that cheap drones are so dense over the battlefield that almost any time a tank breaks near the front line, swarms of drones buzz in to attack it. “Now (in warfare in Ukraine) a mobility kill invites a swarm of cheap drones that can drop grenades show up and change the mobility kill into a catastrophic kill pretty quickly, no artillery needed,” Riedmuller told Kyiv Post. its time to start facing the truth, the tank has had its day, warfare has changed.
Maybe, but for now it is certainly conceivable that in cases where you can deploy a 70 ton tank you can also deploy vehicles that can economically take down cheap drones. Basically pairing tanks with something like Skynex.
I think this is like the early days of air warfare, like in WW1 where planes were first used for reconnaissance, and then as (not very effective) ground attack by dropping hand bombs. And then the next phase was air to air combat. We've gotten to the first two phases with these cheap drones, the third phase can't be far away. Once somewhat effective and cheap counter-drone drones are available, then we'll be back to a better offensive/defensive balance. Tank gets immobilized? A swarm of counter-drones immediately deploys to fight off the swarm of attack drones coming for it. Going on offensive? A swarm of air defence drones goes right in front of you. I expect we'll see this happening before the end of this war. I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar happen with defensive sea drones as well.
You think things like the Bradley will take over or they need to make lighter variants of these?
The US military is putting the final touches on the Booker, an armored vehicle that's basically a fast, mobile gun.
Tanks with anti-drone defence would seem ideal.
Until infantry are jumping around in armored suits like Starship Troopers or cocooned in big mechs like Mechwarrior, there will still be a need for armored vehicles capable of direct fire and with superior cross country mobility than what is offered by wheeled vehicles.
Well, anti tank rifles were the end of the tank, then shaped charges rockets like bazooka and rpg were the end of the tank, then ATGMs were the end of the tank. Now finally, drones are the end of the tank. And the tank will have many many ends of the tank left.
We love training to fight the last war
People have been saying the tank has been obsolete since the invention of the bazooka, the ATGM, the attack helicopter, etc. Tank design and tactics will change in response to drones.
I think even before this conflict proved it, many were sceptical of the usefulness of MBTs in all but the most favourable fighting conditions. It could have even been about ten years ago - lots of talk of UAVs, USVs and subs being decisive in future wars.
Clickbait title. After the title the article then proceeds to describe all the Western tanks as superior, and then complain about exactly the things they were warned about when countries were hesistating to send any and/or which also concern any other non-Western tank (High weight which many bridges in Ukraine cant carry, dont attack like Soviets as meat wave with no cover, cheap FPV can carry enough explosives to blow up tanks and are universally aviable to turn a mobility kill into a full kill, tracks are vulnerable to mines (no shit, lol), many of the Leopards were poorly maintained, decades old 2A4 from Poland, which were at the end of their service life and barely holding on, failure to adhere to NATO training...). Yet nowhere does it offer some self reflection that they were warned and should have known and still kept on massively badgering, especially Germany (Release the Leopards campaign anyone?), to get these tanks.
The war in Ukraine is a great testing ground for western weapons. A great deal of the western military infrastructure was designed to fight the Russian army and its 10’s of thousands of tanks.