undefined | Better HN

0 pointsusrbinbash4y ago0 comments

> the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank)

Offensive destructive power can be provided by air support, long range self-guiding weapons and drone weaponry as well.

I also don't believe that ATGMs mean "Tanks are already obsolete". But I do think they are under threat of becoming so, because: ATGMs will get better, as will drones. Meanwhile, a tank will always be a big hunk of metal moving comparatively slowly on the ground.

0 comments

hef198984y ago

Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin, that's one of the (potential) reasons why neither side has air dominance over Ukraine. And long-range guided weapons are awfully expensive. And they need eyes on the ground. And they cannot carry infantry into battle, nor can infantry hide behind them.

EDIT: The point is that a tank will be made obsolete by weapon system that replaces the tanks function on the battlefield. And not by a system that can destroy a tank. Because those anti-tank systems exist since WW1. Initially the Germans were not that impressed by tanks, large caliber rifles and re-purposed field guns worked just fine against the first tanks the French and British used. Nobody stopped tank, or anti-tank weapon, development then so. I don't see a reason why anybody would stop tank development just because we have impressive Javelin footage. If anything, tanks will improve to increase protection against ATGMs and drones. As will tactics and doctrine.

throwawayffffas4y ago

> Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin

They are not, the fact the Russians have lost so many planes is a testament to their inability to suppress the Ukrainian air defense.

Fighters are capable of flying far higher than MANPAD ceilings the only reason to fly that low is to employ visually guided weapons under cloud cover or to attempt to hide behind the terrain against longer range air defense systems.

Both of these issues can be resolved. By suppressing the enemy long range air defense and by employing laser guided weapons along with ground based designators.

Also fighters can evade missiles, google f16 dodges 6 sams for an extreme example.

greedo4y ago

It depends. If you're like Russia and only have limited stocks of PGMs, then you're stuck using dumb bombs and S-8 unguided rockets. So you either bomb from high altitude, which isn't really air support, much less CAS, or you get down in the weeds where you're facing Igla, Starstreak, Stinger, or Groms. Those will ruin your day pretty quick, and a plane flying CAS is much easier to see (and hear) than a tank. And if you're a helicopter, the same rules apply.

Tactical aircraft in Ukraine is also targeted by Buk/Tor/Tunguska, but I believe most of the aircraft and helo losses have been due to MANPADs.

Now the US is realizing that what it once thought of as robust stocks of PGMs may not be enough for a high-intensity conflict. Production rates of Javelin are pretty slow, and the Stinger has been out of production for a while with no planned replacement. The US Army has always given air defense low priority, counting on the USAF to provide air supremacy. Against a near pear, that might not be the wisest choice, and doesn't help with drones anyways.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse