new phase of armored war in Ukraine?

[Dayton3]

Tanks are a relic of the past, unless you are going to fight a prehistoric nation. Without radar to detect incoming enemies, and counter measures to defend against incoming rounds, then you'd be a fool to blaze onto a modern day battlefield in a tank. Not no, but heck no... LOL.

What would you suggest as an alternative? And before you say missiles (like Javelins) be reasonable

Four soldiers firing Javelins will always be less effective than four tank crewman and a tank.

 

[Dayton3]

What would you suggest as an alternative? And before you say missiles (like Javelins) be reasonable

Four soldiers firing Javelins will always be less effective than four tank crewman and a tank.

Why was my post laugh worthy beagle9 ??

 

[beagle9]

Why was my post laugh worthy beagle9 ??

Have you seen the carnage of armour strewn all about on the battlefield in Ukraine ? Unless I'm getting fake news, then I stand by my assertion that the tank has very limited roles on the battlefields anymore.

Air supremacy is the key, whether it be by drone, fighter jets, high altitude bomber's, tomahawk's and yes javelins that travel through the air once fired, tactical nukes delivered by gravity systems, intercontinental ballistic missile systems, submarine delivery to air systems etc.

Fixed or slow moving target's are a bad deal in modern day warfare, unless defended by air security or eye's in the sky's..

 

[Dayton3]

Have you seen the carnage of armour strewn all about on the battlefield in Ukraine ? Unless I'm getting fake news, then I stand by my assertion that the tank has very limited roles on the battlefields anymore.

Air supremacy is the key, whether it be by drone, fighter jets, high altitude bomber's, tomahawk's and yes javelins that travel through the air once fired, tactical nukes delivered by gravity systems, intercontinental ballistic missile systems, submarine delivery to air systems etc.

air power cannot win wars.

 

[beagle9]

air power cannot win wars.

Respectfully I disagree vehemently with that assertion, because if air power is used precisely and strategically then it's over. Once you've grounded your opponent, then it's a matter of attrition after that.

How do you think that Germany's Bismarck was stopped, and how do you think that Japan was stopped, Germany was stopped as a country, the beaches of Normandy softened up, the Vietcong we're held back for so long, the Doolittle raid was so successful, and on and on and on it goes. Probably could give hundreds more examples, but I'm old... LOL

Oh yeah and the Falklands war, and the Exocet missle's that were used ?

If not for air power it would be brutal and not so one sided once air supremacy is gained. But we know how wars are won, and we know how wars are lost.

 

[Dayton3]

Oh yeah and the Falklands war, and the Exocet missle's that were used ?

Have you forgotten that the side which used the Exocet cruise missiles LOST the Falklands War?

 

[shoshi]

Russian army lost many tanks in the battle for Kharkiv to the Javelin but that was close quarters urban warfare. Open battlefield is different

 

[Rigby5]

It is being reported by Crux that Russia is sending T-14s into Ukraine and Germany and Denmark may supply Ukrainian army with Leopard 2. Two of the best tanks today. But the Russians already know how to use theirs. How much training will Ukrainian crews need to master the Leopard 2? So it is hard to predict who wins.

Just like with Javelin and Stinger missiles, it was not Ukrainians using them, but NATO forces in disguise.
It will be the same with the Leopard tanks.
They will have "volunteer" NATO crews.

 

[beagle9]

Have you forgotten that the side which used the Exocet cruise missiles LOST the Falklands War?

Matters not, it was still the air power that decided the battle in the end. Wasn't sure who used them, but they were hell for sure.

 

[Rigby5]

Leo 2's have seen action in Syria and Afghanistan. Turkish Leo 2's are older models (A4) and were used as fixed emplacements without infantry support, and they lost 8 or 10 of them.

Canadian and Danish Leo 2's (A5 and A6) were used in Afghanistan and performed well. They took a few mines and IED hits, but they didn't lose any.

T-14 is a parade tank, and do not exist in meaningful numbers. Russia just recently announced that they are going to take in 800 T-62's for "modernizing" over the next 3 years- that should tell you something about their tank situation.

Training and logistics are always an issue, but the Ukrainians learned the PzH2000's and Caesar's and HIMARS/M270's quickly, and are able to use them effectively. They will be able to do the same when they transition to a new MBT.

The US has 400 M1A1's that could be transferred to Ukraine.

The Leopard was facing only Taliban infantry in Afghanistan, so then did terrible to have any losses at all
If facing any modern force with airpower and missiles, they would be a totally loss.

The Ukrainians actually did not learn how to use "PzH2000's and Caesar's and HIMARS/M270" at all, and those were all manned by "volunteer" NATO troops.

If the US were to "transfer" any M1A1s to the Ukraine, that would trigger the launching of nukes, not at the tanks, but the US.

 

[beagle9]

Russian army lost many tanks in the battle for Kharkiv to the Javelin but that was close quarters urban warfare. Open battlefield is different

Open battlefield brings on the air power, and if that's a problem here comes the drone's, and don't forget guidance system's that plant the ordinance right down the periscope shoot and into the turret. Hell no I don't want to be in a tank in open warfare, now urban warfare that includes building rubble that helps hide the behemoth's, well that helps some, but no guarantees.

 

[Dayton3]

Matters not, it was still the air power that decided the battle in the end. Wasn't sure who used them, but they were hell for sure.

The British won the war yet the British never gained overwhelming air superiority (mainly due to the distances involved.

 

[beagle9]

The British won the war yet the British never gained overwhelming air superiority (mainly due to the distances involved.

Didn't need to gain complete superiority, otherwise in the modern day short lived battle, because the amount gained was sufficient enough to get the job done.

 

[Rigby5]

Irrelevant.

Wiki:

In July 2021, Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said the tank would enter serial production in 2022. However in March, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu claimed that only “an experimental-industrial” batch of T-14s would be delivered in 2022.[37][clarification needed] In August 2021, Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko said that the Russian Armed Forces would receive 20 T-14 Armata tanks by the end of 2021.[38] On 23 August, a Rostec official said that the company had shipped an unspecified number of T-14 tanks in an "experimental batch" to the Russian Armed Forces.[39] In November 2021, state trials were in progress and expected to be completed in 2022, and a "pilot batch" of twenty tanks was yet to be delivered to the armed forces.[40][41] On 24 December 2021, First Deputy General Director of Rostec Vladimir Artyakov announced, that "serial production" of the T-14 was launched.[4] Earlier in December MIC First Deputy Chairman Andrei Yelchaninov said that state trials of new ammunition loader for the T-14 should be fully completed in 2022, and that "more than 40" Armata tanks will be delivered to Russian troops after 2023.[42]

Note this was before sanctions. Russian tank production is at a standstill now. That's why they are dragging out the relics.

You can put the T-14 in your file with the other "promising Russian weapons that were not produced".

US economic sanctions have zero effect on Russian arms production, as Russia has never used western technology at all.

But dragging out the relics is a good idea, because there is nothing wrong with the platforms of the past.
The problem that caused the failure of so many T-72s, is that they use sack charges, that are extremely bad if there is any armor penetration, in even a tiny amount.
All they had to do in order to prevent any T-72 losses would be to upgrade the cannon to carry only encased ammunition, stored in water filled magazines.
In which case, the US Javelin missiles would instantly become useless.
All the tank losses so far have been from their own ammunition exploding, never from any the projectile itself.

 

[Rigby5]

Several nations have tank parks full of fully functional Leopard IIs.

And why would then then disarm themselves in order to pull some sort of publicity stunt in the Ukraine?

 

[Rigby5]

It’s almost as if we’re fighting a proxy war

One possibility is that both sides are just using this for testing purposes.
Like the British deliberately prolonger the Boer War, so they could train for WWI.

 

[Rigby5]

Have you forgotten that the side which used the Exocet cruise missiles LOST the Falklands War?

The HMS Sheffield was sunk by Exocet.
The British won by volume, not anything else.

 

[Rigby5]

Respectfully I disagree vehemently with that assertion, because if air power is used precisely and strategically then it's over. Once you've grounded your opponent, then it's a matter of attrition after that.

How do you think that Germany's Bismarck was stopped, and how do you think that Japan was stopped, Germany was stopped as a country, the beaches of Normandy softened up, the Vietcong we're held back for so long, the Doolittle raid was so successful, and on and on and on it goes. Probably could give hundreds more examples, but I'm old... LOL

Oh yeah and the Falklands war, and the Exocet missle's that were used ?

If not for air power it would be brutal and not so one sided once air supremacy is gained. But we know how wars are won, and we know how wars are lost.

I tend to disagree.
Air power can certainly be a factor, but the reality is that Germany was stopped by massive attrition, being out numbered about 10 to 1 on the ground and in the air.
The Vietcong were not "held back" at all, and we never had much control of any territory in Vietnam.
The Doolittle raid was successful, but also fairly insignificant except as propaganda.

 

[Rigby5]

Open battlefield brings on the air power, and if that's a problem here comes the drone's, and don't forget guidance system's that plant the ordinance right down the periscope shoot and into the turret. Hell no I don't want to be in a tank in open warfare, now urban warfare that includes building rubble that helps hide the behemoth's, well that helps some, but no guarantees.

Guided missiles tend to have to be small and light, so are not blowing up tanks really, but just drilling a tiny hole with a shaped charge.
If the inside of the T-72 was not strewn with bags of explosive propellant, then these missiles would have had no effect on them.
The crew in battle Kevlar were not killed by Javelin penetration, but secondary explosions from their own internal munitions storage blowing up.

 

[Dayton3]

And why would then then disarm themselves in order to pull some sort of publicity stunt in the Ukraine?

For one, Spain is not likely to need main battle tanks at present very much.