Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Well one major downside to Russia's strategy of cutting off energy supplies....other economies have adapted. Hell, Germany is opening new coal mines to cover the shortfall.

So in using their energy resources as a deterrent, they've effectively removed the one thing that kept western nations in check. If they're not getting energy from Russia anymore, then the only deterrent is war, and nuclear war. Russia is already making war, so the only real deterrent they have left (no one is taking the threat of a Russian mobilization against the rest of Europe seriously because we know they can't sustain it) is nuclear war. Which Russia would only do if they knew defeat was assured and they wanted to piss in the eye of the world before their country is reduced to a soot stain on the earth.

[Devastator]

It does depend on what they're hit with but to my knowledge Russia does not have an equivalent to Javelin. And, uh, good flipping luck to Private Conscriptivich when he gets handed any of the RPGs, even the most modern tandem-charge versions, and told to go take out that Abrams over there. For starters, any of the Western MBTs is going to survive that round to the front. So Private Conscriptivich needs to flank that tank. And his weapon is unguided, so he needs to get close. And meanwhile, that tank's commander is running his camera systems around in circles scanning with his thermal vision systems to find any of the Privates Conscriptivich that might be sneaking up on his tank. And if good old Private Conscriptivich ever gets spotted, he automatically dies.


Yeah. I'd rather be in the tank.

Russia has no stuff of the Javelin or NLAWs level but they do have enough anti-tank missiles and produce them in 3 shifts now. Western tanks are far from immune from those.

Also, most tanks are lost to enemy tanks, artillery or loitering munitions.

I know that Russian army looks funny sometimes, but they have shitload of weapons and the situation you describe may happen only against some reserve units somewhere.

I see this trend among the Western public as if Russia is kinda done and will soon fight with shovels. It is not and it will not. They have resources for many years of war and major offensives.

I remember hearing from the start of the war that Russia would never be forced to use T-62s.

Since then they seem to have committed virtually all available SPGs, all save about fifty modern tanks, used export model tanks and ones modified for tank shows, even a few one-off unicorns built for special and experimental purposes.

No, I'm not going to pretend they're going to be down to shovels, like Imperial Japan, but they're burning through a largely irreplaceable supply of weapons produced over decades in quantities that bankrupted the Soviet Union.  Every destroyed mortar launcher or SPG is virtually irreplaceable, the new-made T-80s have last-gen optics and seem to have been produced at a rate of about 40 in a year of max speed production.

Even their missile supply seems to be significantly decreased.  No daily missile blitzes, they're down to doing them on a weekly basis, in some cases rotating through types of long-ranged weapons.

No, they don't have resources for many years of war and major offensives.  They probably have enough to hang on for a good while, but they have nothing for offensives but lightly-equipped largely untrained infantry, and stockpiles of ammunition.  The stripped border units and demilitarized central Asia say that more than anything else.

[Devastator]

I'm also not certain a Lancet can take out one of these heavier tanks.  What I've seen of them has been them hitting things like towed artillery or much less armoured SPGs.

[Lord Shonus]

Russia has no stuff of the Javelin or NLAWs level but they do have enough anti-tank missiles and produce them in 3 shifts now. Western tanks are far from immune from those.

Also, most tanks are lost to enemy tanks, artillery or loitering munitions.

I know that Russian army looks funny sometimes, but they have shitload of weapons and the situation you describe may happen only against some reserve units somewhere.

I see this trend among the Western public as if Russia is kinda done and will soon fight with shovels. It is not and it will not. They have resources for many years of war and major offensives.

These new tanks won't be an instant I Win button, and there's still going to be a lot of hard fighting, but you're massively underestimating the increase in capabilities. No tank is immune to a heavy ATGM, and in theory those will take out a Abrams as easily as anything else - I say in theory because there's been very few cases of such missiles actually being fired at first-line Western tanks. Most of what has been used has been much lighter and more portable systems that don't have the warhead to punch through from any angle. What makes Javelin so good is the integrated (and very expensive) top-attack function that gets around armor - nothing Russian-made in that weight class has that capability. This negates a large portion of Russia's deployed ATGM capability.

The extremely good optics and especially night-vision optics will (as long as Ukranian crews continue their stellar tactical awareness and coordination, of course - unlike Russia they've shown themselves to be perfectly capable of providing a proper infantry screen) also make hiding the bigger missiles for an attack much more difficult. Not impossible by any means, but more difficult.

In tank-on-tank fights, the differences are heavily magnified. Late-era Soviet-derived ballistic computers and rangefinders are very good. Current gen-Western equivalents, by comparison, are very nearly black magic. Crews that have used both (both from places like Poland that are transitioning, and evaluation crews on units that have been acquired somewhere or other) have used terms like "war with cheat codes" to describe just how ludicrously fast it can be to track and service a target. The aforementioned incredible optics and thermals are an even bigger factor here, because tanks are fundamentally hot objects.

Nobody with any sense thinks that these new tanks are going to arrive and reenact 73 Easting - the only reason Iraq performed so ludicrously bad in a similar matchup is that they'd been crushed from the air. But they are a massive increase in combat power if used intelligently.

[Madman198237]

I wish to point out that at 73 Easting the Iraqis were caught unprepared, their response and coordination were nonexistent, their weapons incapable of damaging the Abrams from the front, the Abrams were capable of killing everything they fought, and even Bradleys turned out to be more than a match one-on-one for Iraqi tank crews.

Sure the Iraqis in general just got blitzed by air support but 73 Easting specifically saw tanks (and IFVs) fight tanks (and IFVs), directly, as the deciding factors on each side of the battle. Air support wiped out the Iraqis overall but every time US tanks met their opponents their opponents died without a serious contest.

Given Russian skill and equipment being demonstrably awful, I would FULLY expect to see at least one or two 73 Easting-level slaughters here or there. The conditions are all present after all.

[jipehog]

But they are a massive increase in combat power if used intelligently.

Any idea how what such used might entail?

From what I gather, due to proliferation of anti-tank weapon and few painful lessons of using easily detectable larger formations, Russian is now using tanks in support roles as howitzer spread around the front.

So I suspect, that there won't ne much tank-on-tank fighting nor much opportunities for tank optics to shine, much like Russian counterparts they tanks will be mainly used as howitzer, relying on its more advanced integrated fire control and utilizing the large supply of advanced ammo to rain indirect fire to  dislodge entrenched Russian positions.

[Lord Shonus]

I wish to point out that at 73 Easting the Iraqis were caught unprepared, their response and coordination were nonexistent, their weapons incapable of damaging the Abrams from the front, the Abrams were capable of killing everything they fought, and even Bradleys turned out to be more than a match one-on-one for Iraqi tank crews.

Sure the Iraqis in general just got blitzed by air support but 73 Easting specifically saw tanks (and IFVs) fight tanks (and IFVs), directly, as the deciding factors on each side of the battle. Air support wiped out the Iraqis overall but every time US tanks met their opponents their opponents died without a serious contest.

Given Russian skill and equipment being demonstrably awful, I would FULLY expect to see at least one or two 73 Easting-level slaughters here or there. The conditions are all present after all.

You can't decouple the effects of spending a month being pounded by the world's five most capable air forces for a month like that. It isn't just about directly destroying units - their support structure and logistics had been blasted to hell, and the crews were worn to nubs because they'd been waiting for flying death to descend on them. The same battle, with the same forces, fought  in January instead of February very well could have had a different outcome. Or at least been less of a one-sided massacre.

But they are a massive increase in combat power if used intelligently.

Any idea how what such used might entail?

From what I gather, due to proliferation of anti-tank weapon and few painful lessons of using easily detectable larger formations, Russian is now using tanks in support roles as howitzer spread around the front.

So I suspect, that there won't ne much tank-on-tank fighting nor much opportunities for tank optics to shine, much like Russian counterparts they tanks will be mainly used as howitzer, relying on its more advanced integrated fire control and utilizing the large supply of advanced ammo to rain indirect fire to  dislodge entrenched Russian positions.

Don't be fooled by what gets released as propaganda. It isn't necessarily a lie, but it is fundamentally incomplete because the main combat formations are maintaining operational security. There's hard evidence that Ukrainian and Russian tanks have been clashing directly since this war began. Using tanks as support howitzers is a thing (and not a makeshift one - many tank designs have the necessary sights built in even if these particular ones don't), but it is not the main thing they're doing with them. When the Leopards and Challengers get to the front, Ukraine will use them the same way tanks have been used since Soissons in 1918 - form a massive armored fist (probably more than one), aim them at a weak point of the enemy line, and try to blast through. Man-portable ATGMs have a limited ability to counter this as long as you pump enough infantry in to guard the flanks as you advance, because they're simply not mobile. Attack helicopters can contribute, but are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and are themselves in short supply. Fundamentally, the only real way to stop a competently performed armored thrust is to either cut it off from supply and let it wither (difficult, and leaves whatever forces you use to do it vulnerable), or to match it with an armored thrust of your own and have a big old-fashioned tank battle.

[jipehog]

But they are a massive increase in combat power if used intelligently.

Any idea how what such used might entail?

From what I gather, due to proliferation of anti-tank weapon and few painful lessons of using easily detectable larger formations, Russian is now using tanks in support roles as howitzer spread around the front.

So I suspect, that there won't ne much tank-on-tank fighting nor much opportunities for tank optics to shine, much like Russian counterparts they tanks will be mainly used as howitzer, relying on its more advanced integrated fire control and utilizing the large supply of advanced ammo to rain indirect fire to  dislodge entrenched Russian positions.

Don't be fooled by what gets released as propaganda. It isn't necessarily a lie, but it is fundamentally incomplete because the main combat formations are maintaining operational security. There's hard evidence that Ukrainian and Russian tanks have been clashing directly since this war began. Using tanks as support howitzers is a thing (and not a makeshift one - many tank designs have the necessary sights built in even if these particular ones don't), but it is not the main thing they're doing with them.

You have information that Russian tank are still predominantly utilized in their traditional roles? any chance for a source

[Lord Shonus]

Very little hard information is getting out, because you generally don't want to tell the other guy where you're amassing forces and where you want to attack. There's plenty of hints out there if you look at destroyed vehicles (many of the confirmed and photographed wrecks were destroyed by tank guns), interviews, and the fact that they wouldn't be saying "self-propelled howitzers are great, but we need TANKS!" if they intended to use the tanks as slightly shitty self propelled howitzers.

[Loud Whispers]

Meanwhile, It looks like Ukraine will get Leopard 2s in a few months and some Abramses in late 2023.

I don't envy Ukrainian logistics guys... this kind of tank zoo*. I don't know how they manage. 

*it will be beyond hilarious if France will also send Leclercs.

I've been listening to interviews from UK tank experts about how the challenger-2 may outclass Russian tanks, but it's also a 70 ton behemoth that the Ukrainians are probably just going to use for defending Kiev and not much else... Because it's a 70 ton behemoth and getting it across bridges or keeping it maintained on campaigns will be nightmarish for them compared to a tank like the Leopard 2 or Abrams where spare parts are much more available

[jipehog]

There's plenty of hints out there if you look at destroyed vehicles (many of the confirmed and photographed wrecks were destroyed by tank guns), interviews, and the fact that they wouldn't be saying "self-propelled howitzers are great, but we need TANKS!" if they intended to use the tanks as slightly shitty self propelled howitzers.

Perhaps, or maybe they seek to tap into the huge stocks of available tanks and its 120mm ammunition. iirc there were reports of possible shortage of Howitzer (155mm) ammunition in Ukraine and limited production capacity in the west. Also right now Russia still fields way more tanks and artillery, and something is always better than nothing.

Naturally interviews will focus on political maneuvering (e.g. to pressure Germany) and standard positive PR (that not even war time propaganda that just politics as usual, we had the same fluff during covid with everyone trying to generate headlines how amazing they and their stuff are). Not sure why you believe that you interviews are more valid source of information than mine, especially when you don't even know what it is.

[Devastator]

Meanwhile, It looks like Ukraine will get Leopard 2s in a few months and some Abramses in late 2023.

I don't envy Ukrainian logistics guys... this kind of tank zoo*. I don't know how they manage. 

*it will be beyond hilarious if France will also send Leclercs.

I've been listening to interviews from UK tank experts about how the challenger-2 may outclass Russian tanks, but it's also a 70 ton behemoth that the Ukrainians are probably just going to use for defending Kiev and not much else... Because it's a 70 ton behemoth and getting it across bridges or keeping it maintained on campaigns will be nightmarish for them compared to a tank like the Leopard 2 or Abrams where spare parts are much more available

The Challenger 2 is a ground vehicle and there's been zero ground combat anywhere near Kyiv.  It's certainly going to cause issues, but I'll bet against it being used anywhere near Kyiv when they start arriving.

[Devastator]

Naturally interviews will focus on political maneuvering (e.g. to pressure Germany) and standard positive PR (that not even war time propaganda that just politics as usual, we had the same fluff during covid with everyone trying to generate headlines how amazing they and their stuff are). Not sure why you believe that you interviews are more valid source of information than mine, especially when you don't even know what it is.

It's not really interviews here.  It's photographs of equipment that took tank fire and got destroyed.  This includes SPGs.  Ukraine is pretty secretive about the exact location of their tank forces, but you can tell where they are by following the locations of stuff that got shot by Ukrainian tanks.

[Starver]

If anyone here has the 'real deal' inside-track on the most private internal thoughts of the respective authorities, sure as dammit they oughtn't to be blabbing about it here. But some people have good reasons to believe that they have a competent 'armchair' interpretation, and I don't find it impossible to believe that different people with differing sets of expert areas of knowledge can convince themselves of wildly different "logical interpretations". And perhaps convince others.

My viewpoint (deep within the cushions of that armchair, more flavoured by cod-psychology than military experience in any theatre of war bigger than a gaming table) is:
1) Ask for a horse, and perhaps you'll actually get the pony you actually would have been happy with,
2) Even if tanks aren't useful (or in masses enough) for direct major front-line use, their presence (or potential presence) changes the way both your and their forces can be disposed, and can definitely get other AFVs out of roles that they are less suited for than for tanks and doing what they are intended to do,
3) A political lever, whether you get them or not, as a bandwagon/guilt-trip thing, (c.f. earlier calls for air-cover, etc)
4) It makes good copy to be righteously asking for them, even better if you get them (but be wary of whenever you lose them)
5) Carefully handled, a good morale boost (directly or indirectly).

But I bet the true requirements have a lot more in-depth subtleties and less wild guessing/osmotic absorption than my own attempt. I think the tanks could(/should) be actually useful as actual tanks (modern and updated Western bells and whistles being a definite boon over their limited abilities to upgrade the inherited and buffed Soviet-era stock). Beyond that, there's certainly other useful psychology to the whole public request. The guy who is asking has a background in audience-facing situations, reading the room, and I don't think that's an insignificant aspect to it.

Time will tell how it unfolds, but that's time for you...

[Random_Dragon]

Side note, it is deeply amusing seeing a situation where the Abrams is not the biggest pain in the ass to keep in working order for once.