61–70 of 490 posts
Zzz.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this comment. The anti-tank weaponry is an order of magnitude less expensive than the tank (some is several orders). The M1A2 Abrams has a unit cost of around 10 million USD (numbers from 2016, so likely higher now). The drones currently destroying tanks in Ukraine (Bayraktar TB2) had a unit price of around 5 million, although some estimates are as low as 1-2 million per unit delivered to Ukraine a…
It's the scarcity of the parts, not the overall cost. Javelins require rare-earth minerals (which largely come from Russia) and rare silicon chips that are in short supply worldwide. I edited my original post to include a link to an article about the difficulties in replacing the diminishing stock of anti-tank weapons.
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere? I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.
I never understood why the tank tracks weren't targeted. They look easy to immobilize.
I believe that tank tracks break frequently and the tank will carry the spare parts required to make a repair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tank is 15-75 tons of armor, engine, chassis and gun. It costs millions of dollars per tank. An antitank weapon is 6-120 lbs of propulsion, controller and warhead. It costs between a thousand and tens of thousands of dollars per weapon. Economics refutes you.
A soldier is tens of thousands of dollars of training and gear. A bullet costs pennies. Thus soldiers have no place on the battlefield? I think you should watch Chieftains video and read some military theory. Simply being vulnerable to less expensive weapon systems does not make a unit/vehicle/soldier useless or obsolete.
That said... I think the niche the tank occupies right now is getting a LOT smaller.
Infantry screening is no longer enough. It's not just manpads and other anti-tank weaponry coming in from close quarters... it's gps guided missiles dropping on the tank from drones miles above.
We're definitely still going to see ground vehicles play an important part in combat, but I strongly suspect it's going to move back towards favoring nimble vehicles with specific utility. Not the current style of armored tanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.
I'm not sure willingness matters as much in the military as you seem to think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Small drone warfare? The Ukraine / Russian conflict has degenerated into trench warfare with thousands of 155mm / 152mm artillery being shot into each other's positions per day. These are the kinds of conditions where tanks excel. Humans who try to walk at 3km/hr get blown up by shrapnel, even 100m away is "close enough" to cause a significant injury and take a human out of a fight. Tanks? They pretty much ignore eve…
In support of your statement, I'm impressed that Russian doctrine seems to rely so much on good ol' trusty massive artillery, of the dumb kind. I guess, if it works...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tank is 15-75 tons of armor, engine, chassis and gun. It costs millions of dollars per tank. An antitank weapon is 6-120 lbs of propulsion, controller and warhead. It costs between a thousand and tens of thousands of dollars per weapon. Economics refutes you.
A soldier is tens of thousands of dollars of training and gear. A bullet costs pennies. Thus soldiers have no place on the battlefield? I think you should watch Chieftains video and read some military theory. Simply being vulnerable to less expensive weapon systems does not make a unit/vehicle/soldier useless or obsolete.
Spears and catapults and bows make your soldiers effective dozens of yards away from the enemy.
Rifles get your soldiers to a hundred, sometimes two hundred yards away.
Artillery and drones make your soldiers effective up to a few miles away.
The further away you can keep your soldiers while accomplishing your goals, the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue! I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this.…
If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
I did want to say your observation is astute.