IS THE ERA OF TANKS OVER OR DOES RUSSIA JUST SUCK AT USING THEM?

[rangerrebew]

IS THE ERA OF TANKS OVER OR DOES RUSSIA JUST SUCK AT USING THEM?
Alex Hollings | February 28, 2023

Last year, Russian tanks flooded over the border into Ukraine, intent on reaching Kyiv and displacing the country’s democratically elected government. But, Ukraine proved to be made of tougher stuff than most would have predicted.

In the weeks that followed, Russia’s massive numerical advantage seemed to do little more than provide Ukrainian forces with a target-rich environment, which laid waste to tanks and other armored vehicles by the dozen using inexpensive shoulder-fired weapons and improvised explosive-laden drones, capturing many of those left intact.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank reported that by the end of the first month of fighting, Russia had already lost a full quarter of its massive invasion force, including 274 tanks. By September, the tally of lost and captured Russian tanks reached 1,000 — more than all the tanks in the British, French, German, and Finnish militaries combined.

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/is-the-era-of-tanks-over-or-does-russia-just-suck-at-using-them/

[Timber Rattler]

Russia has just forgotten how to use combined arms formations...their new BTGs were undermanned, and so there was little infantry support for the Russian armor on the roads into Ukraine, making their tanks sitting ducks.

[Kamaji]

Tanks are becoming a little like battleships in WWII.  Still useful in appropriate circumstances, and if utilized appropriately, but no longer the end-all/be-all of a military strike-force.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Tanks were first developed and used in WWI to break the stalemate of trenchwarfare on the Western Front.

Tanks are weapons for military campaigns of mobility.  Tanks are meant to keep moving forward.  Ask Patton.

A parked tank is a paper-weight.

[Hoodat]

Russia sucks at combined arms assaults.  And because of that, their tanks become vulnerable.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't know if the Russians just suck at it, but I can imagine tanks properly used would be very effective.  The key is controlling the skies.  It's a symbiotic relationship.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't think you necessarily have to control the skies to use tanks, but you certainly can't use them effectively if the other guy controls the skies.

I agree with the comments that the Russian's didn't know how to use them.  Even if they did, the strategic decision to invade from so many different directions with comparatively few troops prevented the concentration of sufficient armor necessary to use it effectively.

But then, they never really expected the Ukrainians to fight back at all.

[240B]

Tanks, like ships and submarines, are of limited and strategic use. Relatively stationary, concentrated, and open targets like these are not of as much value as they were in WWII. In the modern world today, we can know exactly where all these targets are all the time.

It is not so much an issue of finding them anymore. Today, the only issue is having the means and the ordnance to strike them. Sea power and tank battalions have become almost antiquated by satellite surveillance and air power, especially by modern drones.

A single Warthog A10 can take out dozens of ground targets with no risk to itself. Active seek and destroy torpedos can find and eliminate submarines if you know the general area where they are (which we do). And modern hypersonic cruise missiles can target and eliminate most ships.

The next modern war between advanced nations, will be a war of satellites, avant-guard technology, and air dominance. These relics from WWII, ships and tanks, will be eliminated in the first few weeks of the war provided there is enough munitions available to take them out.

[DB]

Advanced handheld weapons render tanks obsolete - if the enemy has access to those weapons. If they do, tanks are just mobile crematoriums.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think you necessarily have to control the skies to use tanks, but you certainly can't use them effectively if the other guy controls the skies.

I agree with the comments that the Russian's didn't know how to use them.  Even if they did, the strategic decision to invade from so many different directions with comparatively few troops prevented the concentration of sufficient armor necessary to use it effectively.

But then, they never really expected the Ukrainians to fight back at all.

I don't think you need to control the skies, but you need to keep your opponent from doing so.

The Nazis were effective at maneuver (combined arms) tactics so long as they had the armor moving, the air cover to keep other air forces off the armor, and infantry to back the armor on the ground. All three elements only guarantee some degree of success if they don't outrun their logistics tail.

That's what doomed the German Eastern advance, along with the raw and deadly Russian Winter.

The Russians never had that finesse, counting on throwing overwhelming numbers into the breach and overwhelming their opponent's ability to fight.

[Kamaji]

I don't think you need to control the skies, but you need to keep your opponent from doing so.

The Nazis were effective at maneuver (combined arms) tactics so long as they had the armor moving, the air cover to keep other air forces off the armor, and infantry to back the armor on the ground. All three elements only guarantee some degree of success if they don't outrun their logistics tail.

That's what doomed the German Eastern advance, along with the raw and deadly Russian Winter.

The Russians never had that finesse, counting on throwing overwhelming numbers into the breach and overwhelming their opponent's ability to fight.

[DB]

I don't think you need to control the skies, but you need to keep your opponent from doing so.

The Nazis were effective at maneuver (combined arms) tactics so long as they had the armor moving, the air cover to keep other air forces off the armor, and infantry to back the armor on the ground. All three elements only guarantee some degree of success if they don't outrun their logistics tail.

That's what doomed the German Eastern advance, along with the raw and deadly Russian Winter.

The Russians never had that finesse, counting on throwing overwhelming numbers into the breach and overwhelming their opponent's ability to fight.

Hand held weapons technology advances have outpaced armor technology substantially.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Tanks, like ships and submarines, are of limited and strategic use. Relatively stationary, concentrated, and open targets like these are not of as much value as they were in WWII. In the modern world today, we can know exactly where all these targets are all the time.

It is not so much an issue of finding them anymore. Today, the only issue is having the means and the ordnance to strike them. Sea power and tank battalions have become almost antiquated by satellite surveillance and air power, especially by modern drones.

A single Warthog A10 can take out dozens of ground targets with no risk to itself. Active seek and destroy torpedos can find and eliminate submarines if you know the general area where they are (which we do). And modern hypersonic cruise missiles can target and eliminate most ships.

The next modern war between advanced nations, will be a war of satellites, avant-guard technology, and air dominance. These relics from WWII, ships and tanks, will be eliminated in the first few weeks of the war provided there is enough munitions available to take them out.

Not if you don't have air superiority, or can't suppress effectively enemy air defenses.  A-10's have been wildly successful for us precisely because we do gain air superiority or SEAD.

Tanks are still very useful if you use them in sufficient mass, and at sufficient speed.   Because even if you know where they are at a given moment, you may not know the axis of advance, and may not have enough anti-tank weapons to cover all those axis in depth.  If they breakthrough, and they can become difficult to stop if properly supported by infantry.  The Russians tend not to do the later, so the tanks become more vulnerable to man-portable ATGM's.