 |
| Source |
I wanted to address that idea, that thought. While I thought about how I would answer the question, I turned to The Chieftain. I was quite sure that Nicholas Moran might have some thoughts on the subject. Better than mine, that's for sure.
And of course he does.
Now the video is three years old, back when people were starting to notice all the drones flitting about Ukraine destroying Russian vehicles (including tanks) and hapless infantrymen who were caught in the open. (Anyone who has survived infantry combat will tell you that it's a very bad thing to be caught in the open.)
So rather than try to argue the point myself (and I am no expert on armored combat) I'll let the SME do it. Take it away LTC¹ Moran!
Note: YouTube has been having some issues lately, if the video claims it's "not available at this time," just refresh your screen.
So yes, the tank ain't dead yet, probably won't be for quite some time.
And it isn't because they look cool, it's because they are still bloody effective.
As to what lessons we can learn from Ukraine and all of those videos on X and YouTube? Here's LTC Moran's take on that ...
He knows his stuff and he knows when not to opine. Good man that.
¹ Proper abbreviation for a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army.
The news of my death were seriously exaggerated - sincerely, Tank
ReplyDeleteAnd premature!
DeleteAir superiority goes a long way to allow tanks to live. Air supremacy goes even further. Just sayin’.
ReplyDeletejuvat
Air power is part and parcel of combined arms.
Delete3 years ago, a good LTC made this video.
ReplyDelete3 years ago, both Ukraine and Russia were fielding tanks and infantry in combined arms operations. Neither side actually had operational control of the air, given the abundance of anti-aircraft systems. More on this later.
Seems both sides over the past year or so use them quite sparingly, wonder why?
First point is I never said the Tank is useless. Just that drones have made the expensive MBT apparently now to be surrounded by lesser vehicles who are designed to defeat LAST YEARS Dones (Yup that's HOW FAST Ukraine and Russia have been adapting to COUNTERMEASURES).
The big battle of the M2 Abrahms was Easterling IIRC. Much noise about how little damage Soviet armor did to them.
NOW, the Rest of the story. The AIR WAR against Saddam lasted SNIP
17 January to 23 February 1991
The air war against Saddam during the Gulf War, specifically the Operation Desert Storm, lasted from 17 January to 23 February 1991. This extensive aerial bombing campaign was conducted by coalition forces against targets in Iraq and Kuwait, leading to significant military and civilian infrastructure destruction.
A little math: 37 DAYS of near continuous air attack on every freaking thing that moved.
Ever hear of sleep deprivation? I was near the front with my MASH unit and we could see some of the closer flashes. Our sleep wasn't the best, but I noticed that combat units closer were Rotating their units to the rear for rest. We had the ability BECAUSE we OWNED the Sky to rotate troops out so sleep deprivation wasn't a big issue.
Now lets discuss that little thing called logistics. You know food, fuel and that stuff. Saddam's forces got little to none of that due to air attacks.
TODAY that massive air attack IS DRONES. Troops HIDING INSIDE buildings are being blown OUT OF THEM when detected. It's NOT just troops in the open BUT then again HOW do you ATTACK UNLESS they move out into the open to advance....
Constant air observation wasn't quite the thing early in the Ukraine Proxy war but now ISR (Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) is CONSTANT even in nasty weather no manned craft would fly.
So here we are using countermeasures built from last years actions and this years newer systems visiting your fuel trucks and so on.
War the evolution of defense vs offence.
It has always been that way. And yes, air power is a key factor. But as to troops being blown out of buildings by drones and massive air attacks by drones, do you have a source for that? And just who is providing all of that ISR?
DeleteTanks have always been meant to act as part of a combined arms team,, i.e. surrounded by lesser vehicles meant to support the tanks. Comparing Desert Storm to the fighting in Ukraine just doesn't track, not at all.
Seems to be plenty of videos of the Ukrainian war showing drones vs infantry in buildings getting smurfed.
DeleteWant links?
Does not track, almost a tank pun.
Drones are the poor man's airforce.
ISR comes from the Drones.
Michael the anonymous
Small buildings in small towns, I've seen those and had hoped that wasn't what you referring to. Drones are the "poor man's air force" and in the face of real air power would get swept away. Well, their operators would. Drones are good for short range reconnaissance, at least those little drones used in Ukraine. Don't confuse those with the big drones, like Predator, which can do ISR further out. If they are unopposed.
DeleteLiked one comment made early in one vid Sarge...."what did I see and what didn't I see?" regarding vids from the battlefield. Nice choices to post.....thumbs up sir.
ReplyDeleteWhat we see on X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube is what the participants want us to see. That is, it's all propaganda. I really like that point that LTC Moran made, spot on in my book.
DeleteSarge, back to back videos on tanks. Sigh. I will get to these soon as tanks have always fascinated me.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best descriptions I remember about the evolution of (and difficulties of) tanks was in the introduction of the science fiction book Hammer's Slammers by David Drake, of all things (1979). It made a very explainable case about the challenge of creating a tank (armor/armament versus weight and maneuverability) and how - up to that point in time - it was always a tradeoff between the two. In the case of the book, the probably was ultimately resolved by the "magic" of technology (fusion reactors, as I recall).
I remember that book. There are three elements to a tank: mobility, lethality, and protection. Can it move efficiently over terrain, can it kill a target at normal tactical ranges, and can it survive being hit, most importantly can the crew survive a hit and keep fighting. Balancing those three elements is a challenge. A very expensive challenge.
DeleteAre tanks still useful in war? Perhaps it is the wrong question.
ReplyDeleteWhen it appears the entire West is being overrun by people antithetical to the society, a better question might be "what is war?"
True, but that question has been asked before. The real question is why do the leaders of some countries hate their countries. Simple answer is they want power and this is how you seize it. War is when nations take things that don't belong to them. What we're seeing now is an insurrection. Which is a form of war. We're talking about the tools of war, not what is war. A good question but out of scope of this post.
DeleteArmor is still more about the Cavalry role of “going and seeing and coming back” than massive destruction. We can move fast, take a hit, and tell what we see. A battalion of tanks should never take on a battalion of tanks. They should locate said battalion and let the rest of the team know. Then the commander can decide which part of the team gets to play. My $.02.
ReplyDeleteCavalry used to come in three flavors: light (primarily used for scouting and reconnaissance but could be used on the battlefield, dragoons (who should have been used as highly mobile infantry but tended to be used as another form of heavy cavalry and were worn out by being used as scouts just like the light bobs), and heavy. That latter bunch were used in battle as a shock force. Tanks didn't really replace cavalry, in today's warfare the helicopter and the fighter-bomber are the real replacements for cavalry. Same goes for the drone (and here I mean the big ones, like Predator) which can scout deep behind the lines.
DeleteTanks are your shock force, meant to deliver a massive blow to enemy forces in a mobile context. In static warfare artillery can do that just as well, if not better.
There really should be no such thing in an army as a "battalion of tanks." Your battalion should contain a mix of tanks and infantry mounted in vehicles which can keep up with the tanks and go where the tanks go. Note that wheeled vehicles with enough armor to protect the occupants suck off-road, at least compared to a tracked vehicle.
Your air assets will locate where the main force of the enemy is, might be tanks, might not be, then you choose the right tool to hit that enemy force. Might be air, might be artillery, might be tanks and armored infantry, might be "all of the above," and that is usually the correct answer, "all of the above."
Tanks not taking on tanks is a very American WWII doctrine. Thing is, the enemy didn't play that way. To kill a tank at a distance usually takes another tank. Missile teams work well, but they're pretty vulnerable to artillery, air, and other infantry. Air works well as long as the enemy has no anti-aircraft capability, and the enemy almost always has some form of anti-aircraft capability due to the prevalence of man-portable anti-air missiles.
Sometimes the best tool for the job is a tank, sometimes it's a guy with a rifle, usually it's "all of the above."
Sarge provides a great historical review, but unless this is including drones as part of "air" that illustrates the fallacy of fighting the last war [i.e. Gulf] and not yet applying the lessons of drones in Ukraine. Probably because it is our surrogates, not Americans engaged there. War is a team sport, but while we oldsters are watching downhill, biathlon and cross country, the young kids are doing snowboard aerial stuff. We need teams for all events, and I don't think our drone/anti-drone folks are ready for Olympic level competition yet in terms of technology, tactics, or that all important (and expensive) element of quantity.
DeleteJB
Drones are definitely in the mix, ignore tools at your peril. We do need to up our game in the United States regarding drones.
DeleteYes, we do need to up our game. Some say Ukraine is being used a bit like the Spanish Civil war to test ideas.
DeleteOne could hope we are as into that as the Ukrainians, Russians, Chinese and Iranians.
Our military is paying attention, at least the folks who might be called on to fight are.
DeleteThe MBT is obsolete...there will be no further need of guns on fighter aircraft, when we have rockets...comm is easy, the IT types can just string Cat 4 cable up, and that's it! Multiple dicta stated by multiple different military brass over the years, all equally wrong. Oh, and as I type this, I hear the sweet, sweet sound of GE J85's passing over, attached in pairs to a couple of NASA T-38's...now, tell me again, which 1961 vintage anything is still currently used? The harder they try to "modernize", some concepts are actually still useful from ages past. We refuse to learn from the past at our peril.
ReplyDeleteAnd the above was Crusty Old TV Tech...sheesh!
DeleteAh Crusty Old TV Tech, you see things clearly!
Delete👍
Delete