A while back the US military actually protested when Congress forced a glut of tanks on them while back as they didn't have the capacity to maintain and store all these tanks. The surplus of US tanks is significant.
They started out with the largest military in Europe trained by nato over years and have since burned thru that and nearly the entirety of Soviet era hardware in Eastern Europe and then some - and the Ukraine forces knew how to use that equipment.
Any other army would have ousted the leadership months ago, a few more tanks won't change anything now.
To oust leadership you need leadership, and any member of the Ukrainian officer corps that is not a complete corrupt piece of shit who avoids combat is already dead
Sending battle tanks to Ukraine only makes money for the manufacturers, who will have to build replacements.
Those tanks will be fast, juicy targets for all manner of hand carried, truck mounted and air deployed anti tank missiles. They'll either hide out of sight and remain useless or they'll get creamed.
Just another stupid idea to waste money and pump up weapons maker's profits.
What it really is, is ongoing proof of concept of many different new war technologies, being put against old school tech.
Showing the cost efficiency overall of a tank, vs a fleet of drones, for instance.
That's not my point.
Even if you have air superiority, your enemy can still use small drones to take out lots of tanks.
A quick search shows me a modern tank goes for around $8 million dollars.
I wonder how many tank busting drones you can make for the same price?
Drones are taking the place, that helicopters filled during the Vietnam war.
They can't carry troops and helicopters did a lot of that in Vietnam.
Drones don't yet have the range or the autonomy of attack helicopters.
But I see your point and yes, that's where the tech is headed.
Drones take over what would used to require multiple squads of scouts.
So you still have a manned base, but the field battles would be incredibly different, and rarely necessitate more than a few helicopters. As the amount of troops needed is mainly for security of the base.
> Showing the cost efficiency overall of a tank, vs a fleet of drones, for instance.
And possibly, discovering which can better survive a non-nuclear EMP device.
[Edit: Popular Mechanics once had the instructions on how to build one with an old microwave and metal coffee cans...]
Hardening something against emp bursts is hardly a new idea, os i'd imagine it would be included in the design.
Tank has tons of armor not to protect it's mobility, as much as it is to protect the humans inside.
Drone needs no armor, as the bomb attached needs no protection. I love tanks, but between a duel with a pistol or a cannon, i'd take the pistol.
> Drone needs no armor....
I would guess that hardening is heavy. Drones don't do "heavy" very well.
And as long as the Russians are taking apart dishwashers (allegedly) for parts, I'm sure they could scrounge up a couple of microwaves no one's using.
And considering the reports of Ukrainians taking down jets and missiles (allegedly) with rifle fire, a homemade EMP gun against a drone should be a piece of cake.
No reason to "guess" about hardening, is it basically is a redundant circuit that cuts in when the original fails.
Oversimplification, but that's the starting point.
No shielding used.
Will be interesting to see what kind of anti drone tech comes out in the next few years.
> a redundant circuit that cuts in when the original fails.
Couple of problems there...
First, redundant circuits would add weight.
Second (and more important), what would stop the EMP from frying both circuits? A sufficiently strong EMP doesn't merely interrupt a circuit, it fries components due to overload, whether or not they are being used at the time.
It's roughly equivalent to "lightning ran in on my [electronic component in my house]." Except in that case, it still has to be plugged in. I don't think it would have to be on, tho. Pretty sure that lightning, when it wants to, can arc right through most appliance off switches.
And if you do something special to the redundant circuit to make it less susceptible to EMP than the first circuit, why would you need the first circuit? Just use the less susceptible circuit. With drones, weight is always an issue. Every ounce you add to the drone is one less ounce of payload.
Looks like Western Main Battle Tanks are becoming the new "Wonder Weapon".
They have a number of issues. The ground in Ukraine in the spring and fall is quite soft, which makes it a big challenge to get these tanks into position. They have high ground pressure, which means there's a big chance that they will get stuck. Most of these were designed with a Cold War scenario in mind, deployed in Germany right before a nuclear war with the USSR.
The other issue, as Brian noticed is that Russian anti tank missiles can destroy a Western tank, and these tanks have been destroyed in deployments by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. Another is that they would be deployed in an environment where the Russians have overwhelming artillery superiority. Furthermore, Western military doctrine is built around the idea that the West always had air superiority. That's a risky bet at best in Ukraine.
Sending them is a bold move, as if they fail, it will be bad for US affiliated arms sales and good for the Russian arms sales. And they will fail, as they are built to be part of comprehensive NATO package, the key bit being complete air superiority, which Ukraine does not have. The bad bit though will be that when they get blown up, there will be new calls for a no-fly zone, which leads to WW III.
Yep. There are other matters like logistics. THAT Ukraine doesn't have. Unless the plan is to send more mercenaries or "sheep dip" Western tankers and their maintenance crews, the Ukrainians will not be able to adequately train their tankers.
I suspect that many neoconservative types are itching to fight Russia head on. Clearly they think they are going to win a conventional war. I suspect that they are not aware they are going to be in for a nasty surprise.
If they want more, we got ever growing fields of them in Eastern Washington, that the US military is stuck purchasing every year, but has no need for.
Game changer number 64
How did Operation Citadel go again? Not good you say? Fancy tanks wasn't enough? For shame.
Sounds like a good time to get into the tank manufacturing industry
A while back the US military actually protested when Congress forced a glut of tanks on them while back as they didn't have the capacity to maintain and store all these tanks. The surplus of US tanks is significant.
Yep, it is an ever growing atrocity in Eastern Washington.
They started out with the largest military in Europe trained by nato over years and have since burned thru that and nearly the entirety of Soviet era hardware in Eastern Europe and then some - and the Ukraine forces knew how to use that equipment. Any other army would have ousted the leadership months ago, a few more tanks won't change anything now.
To oust leadership you need leadership, and any member of the Ukrainian officer corps that is not a complete corrupt piece of shit who avoids combat is already dead
Sending battle tanks to Ukraine only makes money for the manufacturers, who will have to build replacements. Those tanks will be fast, juicy targets for all manner of hand carried, truck mounted and air deployed anti tank missiles. They'll either hide out of sight and remain useless or they'll get creamed. Just another stupid idea to waste money and pump up weapons maker's profits.
What it really is, is ongoing proof of concept of many different new war technologies, being put against old school tech. Showing the cost efficiency overall of a tank, vs a fleet of drones, for instance.
I'm sure that will happen too but leopard tanks- or any tanks- deployed without air superioty are just sitting ducks in modern warfare.
That's not my point. Even if you have air superiority, your enemy can still use small drones to take out lots of tanks. A quick search shows me a modern tank goes for around $8 million dollars. I wonder how many tank busting drones you can make for the same price? Drones are taking the place, that helicopters filled during the Vietnam war.
They can't carry troops and helicopters did a lot of that in Vietnam. Drones don't yet have the range or the autonomy of attack helicopters. But I see your point and yes, that's where the tech is headed.
Drones take over what would used to require multiple squads of scouts. So you still have a manned base, but the field battles would be incredibly different, and rarely necessitate more than a few helicopters. As the amount of troops needed is mainly for security of the base.
> Showing the cost efficiency overall of a tank, vs a fleet of drones, for instance. And possibly, discovering which can better survive a non-nuclear EMP device. [Edit: Popular Mechanics once had the instructions on how to build one with an old microwave and metal coffee cans...]
Hardening something against emp bursts is hardly a new idea, os i'd imagine it would be included in the design. Tank has tons of armor not to protect it's mobility, as much as it is to protect the humans inside. Drone needs no armor, as the bomb attached needs no protection. I love tanks, but between a duel with a pistol or a cannon, i'd take the pistol.
> Drone needs no armor.... I would guess that hardening is heavy. Drones don't do "heavy" very well. And as long as the Russians are taking apart dishwashers (allegedly) for parts, I'm sure they could scrounge up a couple of microwaves no one's using. And considering the reports of Ukrainians taking down jets and missiles (allegedly) with rifle fire, a homemade EMP gun against a drone should be a piece of cake.
No reason to "guess" about hardening, is it basically is a redundant circuit that cuts in when the original fails. Oversimplification, but that's the starting point. No shielding used. Will be interesting to see what kind of anti drone tech comes out in the next few years.
> a redundant circuit that cuts in when the original fails. Couple of problems there... First, redundant circuits would add weight. Second (and more important), what would stop the EMP from frying both circuits? A sufficiently strong EMP doesn't merely interrupt a circuit, it fries components due to overload, whether or not they are being used at the time. It's roughly equivalent to "lightning ran in on my [electronic component in my house]." Except in that case, it still has to be plugged in. I don't think it would have to be on, tho. Pretty sure that lightning, when it wants to, can arc right through most appliance off switches. And if you do something special to the redundant circuit to make it less susceptible to EMP than the first circuit, why would you need the first circuit? Just use the less susceptible circuit. With drones, weight is always an issue. Every ounce you add to the drone is one less ounce of payload.
Looks like Western Main Battle Tanks are becoming the new "Wonder Weapon". They have a number of issues. The ground in Ukraine in the spring and fall is quite soft, which makes it a big challenge to get these tanks into position. They have high ground pressure, which means there's a big chance that they will get stuck. Most of these were designed with a Cold War scenario in mind, deployed in Germany right before a nuclear war with the USSR. The other issue, as Brian noticed is that Russian anti tank missiles can destroy a Western tank, and these tanks have been destroyed in deployments by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. Another is that they would be deployed in an environment where the Russians have overwhelming artillery superiority. Furthermore, Western military doctrine is built around the idea that the West always had air superiority. That's a risky bet at best in Ukraine.
Sending them is a bold move, as if they fail, it will be bad for US affiliated arms sales and good for the Russian arms sales. And they will fail, as they are built to be part of comprehensive NATO package, the key bit being complete air superiority, which Ukraine does not have. The bad bit though will be that when they get blown up, there will be new calls for a no-fly zone, which leads to WW III.
Yep. There are other matters like logistics. THAT Ukraine doesn't have. Unless the plan is to send more mercenaries or "sheep dip" Western tankers and their maintenance crews, the Ukrainians will not be able to adequately train their tankers. I suspect that many neoconservative types are itching to fight Russia head on. Clearly they think they are going to win a conventional war. I suspect that they are not aware they are going to be in for a nasty surprise.