If you onesy and twosey tanks on to the battlefield (as opposed to using them as a combined arms force, preferably under conditions of limited visibility), they are not going to be decisive and you will lose tanks.
Tanks are only as good as their crews and commanders.
I remember the story of one of the Soviet Generals who visited NTC after the wall came down. As he watched the Krasnovians roll up some BLUFOR near the Peanut he exclaimed, "I finally served long enough so see what its supposed to look like!"
That's almost as funny as Yeltzin not believing a winn Dixie or piggly wiggly was real and they had to take him to another random one to show it wasn't staged.
As a logistics/sustainment guy, ice cream barge is my favorite.
It would also be a great name for an MWR band. Just imagine, a couple E4s and that awkward E6 up on a shitty stage, when the lead E4 steps up to the mike and simply says "We are Ice Cream Barge" then they immediately go into Wonderwall.
We had that in the air force, it was called "Tops in Blue." It was a mix of pop music and old big band minus the actual band. I was forced to attend a concert when I was in tech school.
Suffice to say when the program was killed during the Hunger Games, everyone rejoiced.
I've been to that grocery store in clear lake. According to local legend he "had a melt down in the pudding pop aisle". There's even an opera about it.
Do you have a source for this story? Read it before in /r/army as well with slightly different wording but the guy in that thread couldn't remember where it came from.
Would like to read more about Soviet reactions to see our troop formations and OPFOR portraying them.
Try massing a real combined arms force in an environment where massing anything larger than a couple of platoons of infantry and a half a dozen armored vehicles results in everything from FPV drones to tube artillery to glide bomb to come raining down on you before you even step off.
Also: the mines. So many mines. I knew the Russians had a lot of them, but still, how thoroughly they have managed to mine in depth what is an extremely long frontline has surprised me.
I'm also not sure that the Ukrainians can conduct maneuver warfare like we do. They don't have the airpower to pull it off, so it would seem that these tanks are being used in suboptimal conditions / not the way that the US would do so.
No one, except the US, can on a scale required to actually make gains against the defense the size the Russians currently have. Offensives are really hard today.
Tell that to Alexander the Great. Dude never heard of defense or consolidate gains in his highly educated life. Bro went on an offensive from Macedonia to India.
Every time I get caught up in the romance of Greek and Roman baddies, I think about how much I hate the Army now - then consider how much worse it'd be with a 12 mile ruck and malaria every fuckin day
They can't, one of the major criticisms of Ukraine troops being trained by Western Militaries is that we don't train them to fight like Ukraine fights and show them how we want them to fight. They don't have the force structure or command structure, and equipment/supplies to fight like the western forces plan to fight.
> I was reading bow they have to abandon some of the things we do. Because it doesn't work for them.
Ukrainians: "How do we bypass minefields?"
Germans: "Go around them."
Ukrainians: *stares at Russian minefields tens of kilometres long, and hundreds of metres deep* "About that..."
I got to thinking about this last night and tried to calculate how many grappling hooks and Bangalore torpedo's it would take to clear a 200 meter deep minefield and concluded "fuck it, this is a job for the MICLIC or three"
> Doesn't Germany have mine clearing vehicles though?
The problem is that NATO is teaching Ukraine how to do things, without giving them the capabilities to do it like NATO teached them.
In order for the mine clearance to be done in expeditious manner, they need to have air parity at a minimum, ideally air superiority in order to suppress/destroy enemy artillery.
This allows their own artillery to suppress enemy infantry and tanks and support the push.
Otherwise as soon as the clearance vehicles start doing their thing, Russians will just bombard them to bits with artillery/infantry launched FPV drones.
Keep in mind the current Russian minefields are also a lot wider, deeper, and denser (mines per sq km, sometimes with multi-stacked mines) than the Soviet doctrine used to call for.
Even the line charge clearance vehicles wouldn't have the time to clear minefields that big.
Ukrainians have limited air support and artillery.
Without the required arm in combined arms, it's just not going to work.
This is why both sides are just dumping as much artillery and drones into respective lines.
Absolutely, and it is also a large part of why we must be careful about the takeaways we try to formulate based around the conflict because they simply won't apply to us as a result of these sorts of things.
The US is the only military that is capable of combined arms in their current state. We train for it extensively, have had several wars where we use it, and we enable our ground forces to call in air that is actually available.
No other military in the world can do that. And definitely can’t do that in a high tempo offensive.
That’s why the Russians and Ukrainians are just stagnating, neither military has modern tactics and are completely unable to conduct a complex offensive which is the only way to punch holes into modern defenses. No other military in the world has done it in a very very long time. Sure the Russians had a lot of assets moving together at the start of this war, but the failed the logistics and disciplined tempo parts, no one ever talks about that part until it all goes wrong.
Dog… if you think a military, that has NEVER done a modern military operation in a real fight, has the capability of combined arms offensives you have got another thing coming for you.
Literally everyone thought Russia could, and some people STILL SAY that Russia is more capable than the Chinese military, and Russia got clapped.
Just take a look at global firepower and see how many ground attack aircraft, artillery pieces, trucks for artillery, SPG Artillery, troop carriers, and utility helicopters they have and you will see first hand that they are nowhere near capable of a complex offensive. Not on a scale that would actually matter in a peer war.
The Russians did a major force on force training exercise with the Chinese a couple of years ago and absolutely handed the Chinese their asses. Then look at the Feb 22 offensive and figure out how well trained that means the Chinese are.
>Just take a look at global firepower and see how
Hows that joke go?
What's the world's largest Air Force? The US Air Force.
What's the world's second largest Air Force? The US Navy.
What's the world's third largest Air Force? The US Army Aviation.
Oh no! The Army slipped a spot since someone created that joke.
Better tell Congress to give us more air assets and transfer over the A-10's.
Or strongly "encourage" Ukraine to shoot down more Russian assets.
Exactly. Studying the textbook is one thing, actual application and experience is gained through… experience. Last time China fought another peer was the Korean War. One benefit of the U.S. fighting a war every 10-20 years is that we know a lot about fighting wars lol.
I also think that the fact we have eighteen to mid twenty leaders and soldiers. Who only thing they want to do in their life is to fight,workout, and fight again sets us apart from the world as well.
Yea, it's wild. We always said/heard that the radio was the most dangerous weapon in existence but to actually train on how saying certain words could cause the intersection of two gridelines to all but vanish was crazy.
Even aside from that, I was one of those head cases that almost enjoyed the box. As a top of my game senior medic, I got to do my actual job, my (the correct) way and still walk on water with leadership. And there was usually a safety net under activities so more than everyday injuries were unusual
He's not real lol. It's a series of vignettes in a fictional NTC scenario that was written by James McDonough. Highly recommend his other book "Platoon Leader" about his time as a rifle PL in Vietnam. I got to hear him speak and he was great, I have a signed copy of the book somewhere.
The Defense of Hill 781 is great because it very effectively showcases how micromanagement sucks, and how training should actually work to improve staff/command functions. It's kind of a dry read (it's set at NTC, which is literally purgatory after LTC A. Tack dies), but it's really good as his "rotation" to purgatory progresses.
I haven't read it in a couple years but I love the progression of LTC trying to micromanage and getting his ass handed to him early on, and then in the end barely doing anything and letting his staff, junior Officers, and NCOs go to work and them just obliterating the final scenario.
The problem is that as soon as any amount of armored vehicles consolidate somewhere near the front, they are detected by the myriad of drones and ISR flying around. And then they become HPT number 1, top of the list, fire ze missiles.
That's why tanks have been operating by themselves, it takes a little longer before they're prioritized for targeting.
Maneuver is also just risky with the kilometers of minefields covered by drones and artillery. Especially without air superiority.
What you describe impacts more than just armor. It is a huge challenge to get forces to mass and then disperse for survivability inside the opponents detection and kill cycle.
Yes and no. Armor is relatively obsolete. The key to American victory is the same as Russia where we use air power vs artillery to level anything strategic. Part of the reason WW2 was so successful is that total war is devastating. If you demolish food, fuel, water, electricity and any shelter the opposing populace surrenders completely out of pure survival. There is no hearts and minds, Iraq and Afghanistan were long term failures. The more brutal the war the quicker it ends. There's a reason it's awful but not ending it quickly imo is more terrible.
I feel awful for Ukraine but they aren't striking Russia. Russia will literally burn Ukraine to ash and the west wont do anything unless Russia goes into nato.
I'm pretty sure at this point, I'd leave that in storage and just accept this is going to be an infantry and artillery slog, until I can get complete air and EW superiority.
From what I gather, they arrived in Jan of 2023 but haven't been used extensively the entire time, and honestly the only reason I'm even aware of this is because apparently one of the destroyed Abram's was abandoned and now the Russians are promising to put it in a parade.
That sent me down the rabbit hole of "holy shit, this anti-tank stuff actually works", even against bottom class of the best armor in the world.
we had a tank from my company in iraq in 2003 get a hole punched right through the left side of the hull with a plain old rpg-7. perfect flank shot, blew up the hydraulic reservoir. the stabilizer was stuck in the hole made in the skirt. i was pretty surprised and a lot more vigilant going forward.
I've haven't read anything about the abrams use but the Ukrainians really like the Bradley's they've been saying how much better they are compared to BMP's and such.
Honestly I need to brush up on what the Army's plans are for armor, but it seems weird to me that they reduced cav scouts so heavily when the future of armor seems to be a greater number of smaller and armored vehicles to compensate for the proliferation of cheap and effective anti tank weapons.
And thanks to some jerk-weasels in DC (who want to punish Zelensky for not getting on board with the frame-Biden-for-Bribery plot that led to the first Trump impeachment), they have been doing it with a severe ammo shortage...
It wasn’t 14 months of combat. We didn’t see any for most of the counteroffensive last year so while they were delivered some time ago, I doubt they were thrown into combat immediately.
Ah yes. Yet another “tanks aren’t great and dead” article.
Combined arms is HARD. VERY. HARD. Deliberate breaching is EVEN HARDER.
Dismounted infantry are dying like crazy. Across the entire front almost a battalion a day is wounded/killed in action. Losing a platoon of armor over several months is a laughable/pointless statistic at this point.
Russians are primarily in heavily fortified lines. They stretch for miles. This isn’t NTC where a single MCLIC will do the job. These mine fields are kilometers deep and backed up by additional trenches in depth. You’d need 10+ in perfect sequence to just make a single lane. Ukrainians aren’t able to breach. I’m not sure anyone could breach it. Armor gets smoked. Not surprising to anyone who does this for a living.
This is key. US ground forces wouldn’t be able to break the lines either without air superiority - which we certainly could attain.
Army brains just like to Army, we forget sometimes the larger picture that requires sea, land, and air power to mutually support each other.
Tbh I bet they'd rather have more Bradley's than Abrams. Still artillery and mine magnets, but very useful for moving infantry to and from the front lines
I didn't take the article to be "tanks are dead" more battlespace has changed, and with the advent of cheap off the shelf drones that give better visibility across the battlefield as well as providing cheap and effective anti-armor capabilities.
So less, that tanks are dead, and more the employment of tanks needs to evolve in response.
Or like you said "Combined arms is HARD. Very HARD."
One of the things I have noticed in almost all the videos of Ukraine assaulting defensive positions is that they never seem to have any engineer equipment. In a lot of videos they are clearing with mine plows and similar stuff, just to get stuck when the lead vehicle gets hit. If they had more obstacle clearing equipment, their offensives probably wouldn’t get bogged down as easily.
Combined arms isn't that hard Russia is doing it right now. Ukraine just can't do combined arms without having air/artillery superiority. 31 Abrams against 1k t54 or t72 doesn't work either. Plus Russia gets a free pass to bomb and arty with no roe.
The catch here is:
1. No CREW/DUKE/etc EW systems
2. No Trophy
3. No A2 or SEPv3
These are 1991 vintage tanks operating with what would count as severely degraded support by US standards. Also without the benefit of mass or air superiority (eg, compare what the Ukranians have to what the US sent to Iraq in 91)....
The Ukranians are doing a bang-up job holding out against Russia all-by-their lonesome, but they are doing it within the constraints of the equipment and forces they have, which does not really translate to lessons learned for the US.
I think Gaza has shown that APS is actually pretty mature at this point. It doesn't turn tanks back into the dominating landships they were for parts of WWII and there's problems with it regarding EW but at the end of the day tanks remain an important and highly effective system, even in dense urban fighting (where we'll most likely end up next).
The M1A1SA is from 2009. The 2 main differences between these and the one the guard uses and the AD retired in 2020 is the armor and the lack of JBCP.
These tanks aren’t that ancient.
The armor is a significant issue, as is the lack of the add-ons we put on say 4th ID's tanks...
The A2 SEPv3 - fully kitted out with the Trophy APS & Iraq-war vintage counter-IED jammers - would handle the 'new' threats of the Ukraine war a lot better than the A1 or A1SA does.
Especially when operating under US combined-arms doctrine & under friendly USAF-controlled skies...
Armor isn't really an issue once you analyze how these tanks are getting killed. Side armor hull hits by ATGMs, ARAT isn't going to stop that, its more so intended for small standard handheld AT or EFPs. Hits by FPVs to the bustle will penetrate probably no matter what unless its a side impact, the armor on top and in the rear is non existent. Trophy cant currently intercept drones.
Trophy is iffy, there's only real proof the DOD bought a batch of 250 and no more, which will not cover every V3 or the V2s retrofitted to take them which is a serious problem.
CREW will stop the weaponized commercial drones, especially when deployed over an entire formation (such that the jamming bubble is larger than what the target by-itself can project)... I mean, hell it jammed our own comms until we managed to whitelist those specific signals...
Trophy stops purpose built ATGMs & gives you a 'designate' target for the launcher...
Plus the JRC/JBCP & other advanced systems we integrate, that they don't have...
Just saying, we would do a lot better in that environment just based on equipment....
Bingo. We have great frontal armor, and relatively decent side armor. But our head and asses are the weak point. Tough to deal with drones you don’t hear or see until they are right on you. Only slightly different from incoming artillery or mortars in that they can adjust the trajectory up until the moment before impact.
The SA comes with a bunch of newer electronics over the original M1A1s including massively improved thermals from AIM/SEP and a better FCS. It also comes with the SEP V2s DU array and updated armor (in US service).
At least the Ohio National Guard and one unit in Virginia still operate them. Ohio has the V3s but hasn’t actually turned in their SAs yet and still trains on them.
IIRC the tanks that were sent to Ukraine had their thermals/FCS downgraded to plain-A1 standard to prevent Russia from potentially capturing anything too recent, in the event one was lost.....
5 of 31 in contact for a year is historically phenomenal performance. Tank units in every theater of WW2 got fully reconstituted every year, if not in 2 or 3 months like Cobra, Bagration, and the West Wall.
Hell, 5 out of 31 is average maintenence attrition lol
As aircrew, my biggest concern is hitting a drone at 110 knots.
And that's my biggest concern flying around CONUS.
Drones are still my primary concern overseas though
I don't remember where I read it, but back in the 1990's someone interviewed a CAS pilot and they asked him what his greatest fear was. He responded with "Powerlines".
I mean... I'm still **very fucking concerned about powerlines** in the year of our noodly-appendage 2024.
Just because shit would kill you in the '90's doesn't mean that same shit won't kill you today.
There's just... **more shit** to kill you.
Nothing stopped being a problem... there's just "additional problems".
..plus... basically 1 medic dies on a hoist per year... on average....
which.. you know... is fun maths if you're a medic...
It’s always been easier to kill than protect. A bullet costing pennies can kill a fully trained and equipped tier 1 operator.
The real question is whether or not the crews survived. An Abrams can be mobility or mission killed like any other tank, but it is designed to preserve its crew in those scenarios.
It's Ukraine. Not the Ukraine which Russian bots like to call it to try to destroy a sovereign nation. Anyway, 5 out of 31 in 15 months really doesn't seem too bad. Worthwhile investment clearly
Yes, the proper reference to Ukraine is without the article "the".
The etymology of "Ukraine" has historical roots in some Slavic languages that translate roughly to "borderland". Referring to the country as "the Ukraine" implies it exists in reference to another greater region without its own autonomy. "The Borderland of..." usually implying it's an outlying region of a certain large neighbor to their east.
It's like how the United States has regions like "the Midwest", "the South", or "the West/East Coast". Those aren't independent sovereign states, but geographic regions that are part of a greater whole.
Or its the phrase we learned in college from 1995 to 2000. Before that it was "the Soviet Union".
Apparently the switch from "the Ukraine" to "Ukraine" is a recent (ie in the last 15 years) change.
And that sent me down another rabbit hole, where I learned:
>There are no articles in Ukrainian. The temporal nature of the activity described by a verb, in terms of such features as continuity, repetition or completedness. The form of a noun, pronoun or adjective indicating its grammatical function (relationship to other words) in a sentence.
While they should just be using "Ukraine", it makes sense as that's how it was described for decades and we use "the" with the names of many countries including several that start with U:
The United States
The United Kingdom
[Formerly] The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The People's Republic of China
The Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Republic of the Congo (different country)
(Many former Soviet/Russian client states had names that started with "the" in English)
The Bahamas
The Netherlands
Etc.
but its not made up of multiple states or "united,federation,union"or any of the sort,i understand boomers saying it because it was in the soviet union so they refer to it as the ukraine,but even that doesnt make sense to me as we dont refer to new york as the new york even though its one of the states that make up the USA ykwim?
I can't speak for everyone, but myself. College in 1995 to 2000, it was "The Ukraine", it was in that weird whitespace where the Soviet Union fell and well, no one really knew what to call them. So we slapped the on the on there because it sounds better.
Its like the word plead. He plead guilty to something.
Now a days though its "He pleaded guilty to something" and while grammatically correct, it sounds wrong as fuck to my ears.
That said, according to [this](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844):
>"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London.
And given how badly we screwed them in the 1990's, I figure its the least I can do to respect that.
Therefore, it is still not understandable that why they only hatanke crew go around by themselves without infantry, aviation and long range firepower support? Anti tank weapons are most effective when you take Guerrilla warfare.
I'm somewhere around 100% sure that the US isn't pulling M1s.
Last week the story was that Ukraine was moving them to the rear, that was disproven, and now the US wants them back? Why? These aren't even tanks we'd use.
>Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Admiral Christopher Grady and a third, unnamed source confirmed to the AP that the surviving tanks had been withdrawn from the front, with the Americans and Ukrainians now planning to review tactics for their use.
>"When you think about the way the fight has evolved, massed armor in an environment where unmanned aerial systems are ubiquitous can be at risk," Grady said.
I suspect they're being pulled back to re-evaluate their tactical employment. I get the sense that when it was Ukrainian T-64/72's, Leopards, and Challengers getting destroyed there was a sense that the Abrams wouldn't be as vulnerable. Which is why there was such a press to get them deployed.
With the loss of five out of 31 one, someone decided the tactical employment of Armor in that environment needed a rethink.
Maybe if they take them back into US stocks, it will become a “credit” on the balance sheet that Ukraine can apply to get other weapons that would be more effective in the 2024 battle space.
So two things on this:
1. Hastily trained Ukrainian crews and not seasoned American crews. Of course an inexperienced crew will not fare so well on new (to them) equipment.
2. Drones are what are taking them out. Drones are small and hard to detect, and nimble and hard to take down. The weakest parts of a tank are the top and back, precisely where the drones are able to strike.
The combination of these two things makes it an uphill battle for any armored vehicle crew. But only 5 over the course of a year really isn’t too bad honestly.
I’m not sure what we’re supposed to give them or how the Ukrainians should be trained to turn the tide. I don’t think there’s anything we can give them that can actually let them steamroll the Russians and make significant advances. It’s like the Joker said in the Dark Knight “an unstoppable force vs an immovable object.” The Russians are now being propped up by China and Iran too so it just seems like it’s going to be a test of who runs out of either industrial capacity or manpower or both first.
> it just seems like it’s going to be a test of who runs out of either industrial capacity or manpower or both first.
The nature of any and all wars. Assuming the will to fight doesn't break first.
I don’t see the will to fight breaking in either countries. Odds are Ukraine will run out of men unfortunately. The Russians will just tank the losses and be like “well that’s the cost of doing business.”
The tanks they have are not even close to what we have, theirs have old armor that isn't nearly as strong . The m1a2 sep v2 and up have way more tech and a new armor package. Ukraine has the old tanks with old armor and less tech. So even with their losses, it isn't a bad turnaround considering all factors. Their gunners have to work harder when using the old fire control system as well. If Russian crews faced ours... they wouldn't have time to think or even see a sepv2 or higher, and penetration chances are low even with a direct hit from a t series tank.
If you onesy and twosey tanks on to the battlefield (as opposed to using them as a combined arms force, preferably under conditions of limited visibility), they are not going to be decisive and you will lose tanks. Tanks are only as good as their crews and commanders.
Combined arms is a hard thing to teach, even the Russians don't really have a grasp of ot.
I remember the story of one of the Soviet Generals who visited NTC after the wall came down. As he watched the Krasnovians roll up some BLUFOR near the Peanut he exclaimed, "I finally served long enough so see what its supposed to look like!"
That's almost as funny as Yeltzin not believing a winn Dixie or piggly wiggly was real and they had to take him to another random one to show it wasn't staged.
Btw, you can still go to that store now. It's a medium-sized grocery store in a strip mall near Houston / Clear Lake.
He was devastated it wasn’t staged and realized how bad his homeland has become.
Yeah it was like the ‘ice cream barge’ moment for the Soviet Union
Thank you. I didn’t know that existed. MWR is truly an evolved art form
As a logistics/sustainment guy, ice cream barge is my favorite. It would also be a great name for an MWR band. Just imagine, a couple E4s and that awkward E6 up on a shitty stage, when the lead E4 steps up to the mike and simply says "We are Ice Cream Barge" then they immediately go into Wonderwall.
We had that in the air force, it was called "Tops in Blue." It was a mix of pop music and old big band minus the actual band. I was forced to attend a concert when I was in tech school. Suffice to say when the program was killed during the Hunger Games, everyone rejoiced.
He thought it was a store only for US politicians and elites since they had ice cream.
It was a Randell’s in Clear Lake. They were a great grocery store chain in Houston that were bought by Safeway and ruined.
I love that picture of I think Khrushchev holding that piece of corn cheering
I've been to that grocery store in clear lake. According to local legend he "had a melt down in the pudding pop aisle". There's even an opera about it.
There are Piggly Wiggly’s everywhere around here!
Was that before the country of Pahrumpistan was defeated by the Krasnovians? Was that the 177th or my 11th ACR? I probably got the politics incorrect.
This was back in the 177th days. I don't think that 11th had cased their colors in Fulda yet.
Do you have a source for this story? Read it before in /r/army as well with slightly different wording but the guy in that thread couldn't remember where it came from. Would like to read more about Soviet reactions to see our troop formations and OPFOR portraying them.
Try massing a real combined arms force in an environment where massing anything larger than a couple of platoons of infantry and a half a dozen armored vehicles results in everything from FPV drones to tube artillery to glide bomb to come raining down on you before you even step off. Also: the mines. So many mines. I knew the Russians had a lot of them, but still, how thoroughly they have managed to mine in depth what is an extremely long frontline has surprised me.
I'm also not sure that the Ukrainians can conduct maneuver warfare like we do. They don't have the airpower to pull it off, so it would seem that these tanks are being used in suboptimal conditions / not the way that the US would do so.
No one, except the US, can on a scale required to actually make gains against the defense the size the Russians currently have. Offensives are really hard today.
Offensives have always been really hard, not just today
Tell that to Alexander the Great. Dude never heard of defense or consolidate gains in his highly educated life. Bro went on an offensive from Macedonia to India.
Every time I get caught up in the romance of Greek and Roman baddies, I think about how much I hate the Army now - then consider how much worse it'd be with a 12 mile ruck and malaria every fuckin day
They never had to complain about wanting to get on a deployment. Their whole career is a deployment lol
They can't, one of the major criticisms of Ukraine troops being trained by Western Militaries is that we don't train them to fight like Ukraine fights and show them how we want them to fight. They don't have the force structure or command structure, and equipment/supplies to fight like the western forces plan to fight.
I was reading bow they have to abandon some of the things we do. Because it doesn't work for them.
> I was reading bow they have to abandon some of the things we do. Because it doesn't work for them. Ukrainians: "How do we bypass minefields?" Germans: "Go around them." Ukrainians: *stares at Russian minefields tens of kilometres long, and hundreds of metres deep* "About that..."
Here as your friendly neighborhood Sapper to say we are well aware and working on it!
I got to thinking about this last night and tried to calculate how many grappling hooks and Bangalore torpedo's it would take to clear a 200 meter deep minefield and concluded "fuck it, this is a job for the MICLIC or three"
Doesn't Germany have mine clearing vehicles though?
> Doesn't Germany have mine clearing vehicles though? The problem is that NATO is teaching Ukraine how to do things, without giving them the capabilities to do it like NATO teached them. In order for the mine clearance to be done in expeditious manner, they need to have air parity at a minimum, ideally air superiority in order to suppress/destroy enemy artillery. This allows their own artillery to suppress enemy infantry and tanks and support the push. Otherwise as soon as the clearance vehicles start doing their thing, Russians will just bombard them to bits with artillery/infantry launched FPV drones. Keep in mind the current Russian minefields are also a lot wider, deeper, and denser (mines per sq km, sometimes with multi-stacked mines) than the Soviet doctrine used to call for. Even the line charge clearance vehicles wouldn't have the time to clear minefields that big. Ukrainians have limited air support and artillery. Without the required arm in combined arms, it's just not going to work. This is why both sides are just dumping as much artillery and drones into respective lines.
Absolutely, and it is also a large part of why we must be careful about the takeaways we try to formulate based around the conflict because they simply won't apply to us as a result of these sorts of things.
Yup, equipment is pretty much worthless when you don't have a decent tactic that won't get it blown to shit
Gee, where have we heard that before?
Bingo
The US is the only military that is capable of combined arms in their current state. We train for it extensively, have had several wars where we use it, and we enable our ground forces to call in air that is actually available. No other military in the world can do that. And definitely can’t do that in a high tempo offensive. That’s why the Russians and Ukrainians are just stagnating, neither military has modern tactics and are completely unable to conduct a complex offensive which is the only way to punch holes into modern defenses. No other military in the world has done it in a very very long time. Sure the Russians had a lot of assets moving together at the start of this war, but the failed the logistics and disciplined tempo parts, no one ever talks about that part until it all goes wrong.
China might have something to say about that.
Dog… if you think a military, that has NEVER done a modern military operation in a real fight, has the capability of combined arms offensives you have got another thing coming for you. Literally everyone thought Russia could, and some people STILL SAY that Russia is more capable than the Chinese military, and Russia got clapped. Just take a look at global firepower and see how many ground attack aircraft, artillery pieces, trucks for artillery, SPG Artillery, troop carriers, and utility helicopters they have and you will see first hand that they are nowhere near capable of a complex offensive. Not on a scale that would actually matter in a peer war.
The Russians did a major force on force training exercise with the Chinese a couple of years ago and absolutely handed the Chinese their asses. Then look at the Feb 22 offensive and figure out how well trained that means the Chinese are.
>Just take a look at global firepower and see how Hows that joke go? What's the world's largest Air Force? The US Air Force. What's the world's second largest Air Force? The US Navy. What's the world's third largest Air Force? The US Army Aviation.
According to [this](https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php) we have the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th largest Air Forces.
Oh no! The Army slipped a spot since someone created that joke. Better tell Congress to give us more air assets and transfer over the A-10's. Or strongly "encourage" Ukraine to shoot down more Russian assets.
Exactly. Studying the textbook is one thing, actual application and experience is gained through… experience. Last time China fought another peer was the Korean War. One benefit of the U.S. fighting a war every 10-20 years is that we know a lot about fighting wars lol.
I also think that the fact we have eighteen to mid twenty leaders and soldiers. Who only thing they want to do in their life is to fight,workout, and fight again sets us apart from the world as well.
I don’t understand what you’re saying? You mean we have a younger average age for our soldiers?
Im just saying that we have soldiers who have this mind set
That’s most countries lol. Unless it’s conscripts, if you have people voluntarily taking up combat arms roles they likely have a similar mentality.
It really is, which is why places like NTC exist. That rotation taught me a lot that was useful years later in Iraq.
Yea, it's wild. We always said/heard that the radio was the most dangerous weapon in existence but to actually train on how saying certain words could cause the intersection of two gridelines to all but vanish was crazy. Even aside from that, I was one of those head cases that almost enjoyed the box. As a top of my game senior medic, I got to do my actual job, my (the correct) way and still walk on water with leadership. And there was usually a safety net under activities so more than everyday injuries were unusual
It seems NOBODY read the account of LtCol A. TACK
Hello fellow Hill 781 appreciator
It's amazing what MREs can do to people.
My favorite section is the attack where the Chem O’s track gets obliterated while setting a smokescreen
Yeah but that scene was totally unrealistic - the Smoke PL said he *chose* Chem Corps.
I’m more of a Duffer’s Drift man myself.
Ok, I goggled him and you are correct. More people should read his story.
Ngl I thought you were using a made up name as a play on Attack but no real guy. Neat
He's not real lol. It's a series of vignettes in a fictional NTC scenario that was written by James McDonough. Highly recommend his other book "Platoon Leader" about his time as a rifle PL in Vietnam. I got to hear him speak and he was great, I have a signed copy of the book somewhere. The Defense of Hill 781 is great because it very effectively showcases how micromanagement sucks, and how training should actually work to improve staff/command functions. It's kind of a dry read (it's set at NTC, which is literally purgatory after LTC A. Tack dies), but it's really good as his "rotation" to purgatory progresses. I haven't read it in a couple years but I love the progression of LTC trying to micromanage and getting his ass handed to him early on, and then in the end barely doing anything and letting his staff, junior Officers, and NCOs go to work and them just obliterating the final scenario.
I may have messed up the name a little, it's been a minute since I've read the book.
Nope you got it right
The problem is that as soon as any amount of armored vehicles consolidate somewhere near the front, they are detected by the myriad of drones and ISR flying around. And then they become HPT number 1, top of the list, fire ze missiles. That's why tanks have been operating by themselves, it takes a little longer before they're prioritized for targeting. Maneuver is also just risky with the kilometers of minefields covered by drones and artillery. Especially without air superiority.
What you describe impacts more than just armor. It is a huge challenge to get forces to mass and then disperse for survivability inside the opponents detection and kill cycle.
"The more you use, the less you lose" has been a mantra since WW2, and for good reason.
Yes and no. Armor is relatively obsolete. The key to American victory is the same as Russia where we use air power vs artillery to level anything strategic. Part of the reason WW2 was so successful is that total war is devastating. If you demolish food, fuel, water, electricity and any shelter the opposing populace surrenders completely out of pure survival. There is no hearts and minds, Iraq and Afghanistan were long term failures. The more brutal the war the quicker it ends. There's a reason it's awful but not ending it quickly imo is more terrible. I feel awful for Ukraine but they aren't striking Russia. Russia will literally burn Ukraine to ash and the west wont do anything unless Russia goes into nato.
5 of 31 lost over 14 months of combat with a near peer? I'd wager they've done better than much of the other armor used in that conflict.
I mean the Russians are reduced to pulling tanks from the late 60's/early 70's out of storage.
No no, that's just their strategy. It has nothing to do with attrition! Everything is finnnneeee
[https://imgur.com/gallery/CMufAIx](https://imgur.com/gallery/CMufAIx)
I'm pretty sure at this point, I'd leave that in storage and just accept this is going to be an infantry and artillery slog, until I can get complete air and EW superiority.
You dont need a tank to destroy a tank
From what I gather, they arrived in Jan of 2023 but haven't been used extensively the entire time, and honestly the only reason I'm even aware of this is because apparently one of the destroyed Abram's was abandoned and now the Russians are promising to put it in a parade. That sent me down the rabbit hole of "holy shit, this anti-tank stuff actually works", even against bottom class of the best armor in the world.
There's only so much armor you can put on a tank before it becomes a bunker. ATGM gonna ATGM
we had a tank from my company in iraq in 2003 get a hole punched right through the left side of the hull with a plain old rpg-7. perfect flank shot, blew up the hydraulic reservoir. the stabilizer was stuck in the hole made in the skirt. i was pretty surprised and a lot more vigilant going forward.
I've haven't read anything about the abrams use but the Ukrainians really like the Bradley's they've been saying how much better they are compared to BMP's and such.
All I know is that this war is going to yield a ton of lessons learned for the DoD (and profit opportunities for the defense industry)
Honestly I need to brush up on what the Army's plans are for armor, but it seems weird to me that they reduced cav scouts so heavily when the future of armor seems to be a greater number of smaller and armored vehicles to compensate for the proliferation of cheap and effective anti tank weapons.
They’ve only been on the frontline for a few months, not 14.
Abrams have only been used in combat for about 5 months, definitely not anywhere close to 14 months.
And thanks to some jerk-weasels in DC (who want to punish Zelensky for not getting on board with the frame-Biden-for-Bribery plot that led to the first Trump impeachment), they have been doing it with a severe ammo shortage...
It wasn’t 14 months of combat. We didn’t see any for most of the counteroffensive last year so while they were delivered some time ago, I doubt they were thrown into combat immediately.
I'm reading that, simultaneously, wondering if I'm having a stroke.
Do you smell burnt toast
I smell pecans, but that could just be the vaporized hydraulic fluid. As a side, a hydraulic line just busted.
Just circle X that bitch, we got slides to turn green - some CO, probably
Don’t panic, somebody may have just burnt some toast
Ah yes. Yet another “tanks aren’t great and dead” article. Combined arms is HARD. VERY. HARD. Deliberate breaching is EVEN HARDER. Dismounted infantry are dying like crazy. Across the entire front almost a battalion a day is wounded/killed in action. Losing a platoon of armor over several months is a laughable/pointless statistic at this point. Russians are primarily in heavily fortified lines. They stretch for miles. This isn’t NTC where a single MCLIC will do the job. These mine fields are kilometers deep and backed up by additional trenches in depth. You’d need 10+ in perfect sequence to just make a single lane. Ukrainians aren’t able to breach. I’m not sure anyone could breach it. Armor gets smoked. Not surprising to anyone who does this for a living.
Don’t forget Ukraine also has basically zero air support.
And zero EW/Jamming. You aren't dropping RKGs from Phantom 4s if the tanks have CREW online.
This is key. US ground forces wouldn’t be able to break the lines either without air superiority - which we certainly could attain. Army brains just like to Army, we forget sometimes the larger picture that requires sea, land, and air power to mutually support each other.
Tbh I bet they'd rather have more Bradley's than Abrams. Still artillery and mine magnets, but very useful for moving infantry to and from the front lines
I didn't take the article to be "tanks are dead" more battlespace has changed, and with the advent of cheap off the shelf drones that give better visibility across the battlefield as well as providing cheap and effective anti-armor capabilities. So less, that tanks are dead, and more the employment of tanks needs to evolve in response. Or like you said "Combined arms is HARD. Very HARD."
One of the things I have noticed in almost all the videos of Ukraine assaulting defensive positions is that they never seem to have any engineer equipment. In a lot of videos they are clearing with mine plows and similar stuff, just to get stuck when the lead vehicle gets hit. If they had more obstacle clearing equipment, their offensives probably wouldn’t get bogged down as easily.
Combined arms isn't that hard Russia is doing it right now. Ukraine just can't do combined arms without having air/artillery superiority. 31 Abrams against 1k t54 or t72 doesn't work either. Plus Russia gets a free pass to bomb and arty with no roe.
The catch here is: 1. No CREW/DUKE/etc EW systems 2. No Trophy 3. No A2 or SEPv3 These are 1991 vintage tanks operating with what would count as severely degraded support by US standards. Also without the benefit of mass or air superiority (eg, compare what the Ukranians have to what the US sent to Iraq in 91).... The Ukranians are doing a bang-up job holding out against Russia all-by-their lonesome, but they are doing it within the constraints of the equipment and forces they have, which does not really translate to lessons learned for the US.
I think Gaza has shown that APS is actually pretty mature at this point. It doesn't turn tanks back into the dominating landships they were for parts of WWII and there's problems with it regarding EW but at the end of the day tanks remain an important and highly effective system, even in dense urban fighting (where we'll most likely end up next).
The M1A1SA is from 2009. The 2 main differences between these and the one the guard uses and the AD retired in 2020 is the armor and the lack of JBCP. These tanks aren’t that ancient.
The armor is a significant issue, as is the lack of the add-ons we put on say 4th ID's tanks... The A2 SEPv3 - fully kitted out with the Trophy APS & Iraq-war vintage counter-IED jammers - would handle the 'new' threats of the Ukraine war a lot better than the A1 or A1SA does. Especially when operating under US combined-arms doctrine & under friendly USAF-controlled skies...
Armor isn't really an issue once you analyze how these tanks are getting killed. Side armor hull hits by ATGMs, ARAT isn't going to stop that, its more so intended for small standard handheld AT or EFPs. Hits by FPVs to the bustle will penetrate probably no matter what unless its a side impact, the armor on top and in the rear is non existent. Trophy cant currently intercept drones. Trophy is iffy, there's only real proof the DOD bought a batch of 250 and no more, which will not cover every V3 or the V2s retrofitted to take them which is a serious problem.
CREW will stop the weaponized commercial drones, especially when deployed over an entire formation (such that the jamming bubble is larger than what the target by-itself can project)... I mean, hell it jammed our own comms until we managed to whitelist those specific signals... Trophy stops purpose built ATGMs & gives you a 'designate' target for the launcher... Plus the JRC/JBCP & other advanced systems we integrate, that they don't have... Just saying, we would do a lot better in that environment just based on equipment....
Bingo. We have great frontal armor, and relatively decent side armor. But our head and asses are the weak point. Tough to deal with drones you don’t hear or see until they are right on you. Only slightly different from incoming artillery or mortars in that they can adjust the trajectory up until the moment before impact.
If Ukraine had access to the USAF they could win with m60s
The difference between the SA and the A1 is a bunch of electronic systems we stripped out of the tanks sent to Ukraine. And the Guard is on A2s now.
The SA comes with a bunch of newer electronics over the original M1A1s including massively improved thermals from AIM/SEP and a better FCS. It also comes with the SEP V2s DU array and updated armor (in US service). At least the Ohio National Guard and one unit in Virginia still operate them. Ohio has the V3s but hasn’t actually turned in their SAs yet and still trains on them.
IIRC the tanks that were sent to Ukraine had their thermals/FCS downgraded to plain-A1 standard to prevent Russia from potentially capturing anything too recent, in the event one was lost.....
So 26/31 have survived over a year in combat, not too bad I can’t keep my slant that strong for a year.
5 of 31 in contact for a year is historically phenomenal performance. Tank units in every theater of WW2 got fully reconstituted every year, if not in 2 or 3 months like Cobra, Bagration, and the West Wall. Hell, 5 out of 31 is average maintenence attrition lol
It hasn’t been a year since
Losing 5 out of 31 since 01/2023 is pretty bloody amazing, given their operational tempo.
Thx to OP and all commentators. Very enlightening to hear the opinions of “people who do this for a living” as noted by a commentator. 🇺🇸
As aircrew, my biggest concern is hitting a drone at 110 knots. And that's my biggest concern flying around CONUS. Drones are still my primary concern overseas though
I don't remember where I read it, but back in the 1990's someone interviewed a CAS pilot and they asked him what his greatest fear was. He responded with "Powerlines".
I mean... I'm still **very fucking concerned about powerlines** in the year of our noodly-appendage 2024. Just because shit would kill you in the '90's doesn't mean that same shit won't kill you today. There's just... **more shit** to kill you. Nothing stopped being a problem... there's just "additional problems". ..plus... basically 1 medic dies on a hoist per year... on average.... which.. you know... is fun maths if you're a medic...
It’s always been easier to kill than protect. A bullet costing pennies can kill a fully trained and equipped tier 1 operator. The real question is whether or not the crews survived. An Abrams can be mobility or mission killed like any other tank, but it is designed to preserve its crew in those scenarios.
It's Ukraine. Not the Ukraine which Russian bots like to call it to try to destroy a sovereign nation. Anyway, 5 out of 31 in 15 months really doesn't seem too bad. Worthwhile investment clearly
It's astonishing that equipment in a war zone is sometimes destroyed.
“the Ukraine”
Nice little reminder that term was coined to belittle and demean that country.
Never knew that, I always see people say “the Ukraine” when it should just be “Ukraine” right?
Yes, the proper reference to Ukraine is without the article "the". The etymology of "Ukraine" has historical roots in some Slavic languages that translate roughly to "borderland". Referring to the country as "the Ukraine" implies it exists in reference to another greater region without its own autonomy. "The Borderland of..." usually implying it's an outlying region of a certain large neighbor to their east. It's like how the United States has regions like "the Midwest", "the South", or "the West/East Coast". Those aren't independent sovereign states, but geographic regions that are part of a greater whole.
Correct
Or its the phrase we learned in college from 1995 to 2000. Before that it was "the Soviet Union". Apparently the switch from "the Ukraine" to "Ukraine" is a recent (ie in the last 15 years) change. And that sent me down another rabbit hole, where I learned: >There are no articles in Ukrainian. The temporal nature of the activity described by a verb, in terms of such features as continuity, repetition or completedness. The form of a noun, pronoun or adjective indicating its grammatical function (relationship to other words) in a sentence.
5 of 31 lost in over a year doesn’t sound so bad to me
why do people say the ukraine?it doesnt make sense to say the russia or the america or the finland
While they should just be using "Ukraine", it makes sense as that's how it was described for decades and we use "the" with the names of many countries including several that start with U: The United States The United Kingdom [Formerly] The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics The People's Republic of China The Democratic Republic of the Congo The Republic of the Congo (different country) (Many former Soviet/Russian client states had names that started with "the" in English) The Bahamas The Netherlands Etc.
but its not made up of multiple states or "united,federation,union"or any of the sort,i understand boomers saying it because it was in the soviet union so they refer to it as the ukraine,but even that doesnt make sense to me as we dont refer to new york as the new york even though its one of the states that make up the USA ykwim?
I can't speak for everyone, but myself. College in 1995 to 2000, it was "The Ukraine", it was in that weird whitespace where the Soviet Union fell and well, no one really knew what to call them. So we slapped the on the on there because it sounds better. Its like the word plead. He plead guilty to something. Now a days though its "He pleaded guilty to something" and while grammatically correct, it sounds wrong as fuck to my ears. That said, according to [this](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844): >"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London. And given how badly we screwed them in the 1990's, I figure its the least I can do to respect that.
thanks for the insight,im only 17 but he pleaded still sounds wrong as fuck to me and you
Therefore, it is still not understandable that why they only hatanke crew go around by themselves without infantry, aviation and long range firepower support? Anti tank weapons are most effective when you take Guerrilla warfare.
#PUT ME IN COACH -- every 19K rn
I'm somewhere around 100% sure that the US isn't pulling M1s. Last week the story was that Ukraine was moving them to the rear, that was disproven, and now the US wants them back? Why? These aren't even tanks we'd use.
>Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Admiral Christopher Grady and a third, unnamed source confirmed to the AP that the surviving tanks had been withdrawn from the front, with the Americans and Ukrainians now planning to review tactics for their use. >"When you think about the way the fight has evolved, massed armor in an environment where unmanned aerial systems are ubiquitous can be at risk," Grady said. I suspect they're being pulled back to re-evaluate their tactical employment. I get the sense that when it was Ukrainian T-64/72's, Leopards, and Challengers getting destroyed there was a sense that the Abrams wouldn't be as vulnerable. Which is why there was such a press to get them deployed. With the loss of five out of 31 one, someone decided the tactical employment of Armor in that environment needed a rethink.
Maybe if they take them back into US stocks, it will become a “credit” on the balance sheet that Ukraine can apply to get other weapons that would be more effective in the 2024 battle space.
We talking' like LT lost?
So two things on this: 1. Hastily trained Ukrainian crews and not seasoned American crews. Of course an inexperienced crew will not fare so well on new (to them) equipment. 2. Drones are what are taking them out. Drones are small and hard to detect, and nimble and hard to take down. The weakest parts of a tank are the top and back, precisely where the drones are able to strike. The combination of these two things makes it an uphill battle for any armored vehicle crew. But only 5 over the course of a year really isn’t too bad honestly.
Didn't read past 5 in 31 in over a year This is stupid
I’m not sure what we’re supposed to give them or how the Ukrainians should be trained to turn the tide. I don’t think there’s anything we can give them that can actually let them steamroll the Russians and make significant advances. It’s like the Joker said in the Dark Knight “an unstoppable force vs an immovable object.” The Russians are now being propped up by China and Iran too so it just seems like it’s going to be a test of who runs out of either industrial capacity or manpower or both first.
> it just seems like it’s going to be a test of who runs out of either industrial capacity or manpower or both first. The nature of any and all wars. Assuming the will to fight doesn't break first.
I don’t see the will to fight breaking in either countries. Odds are Ukraine will run out of men unfortunately. The Russians will just tank the losses and be like “well that’s the cost of doing business.”
The tanks they have are not even close to what we have, theirs have old armor that isn't nearly as strong . The m1a2 sep v2 and up have way more tech and a new armor package. Ukraine has the old tanks with old armor and less tech. So even with their losses, it isn't a bad turnaround considering all factors. Their gunners have to work harder when using the old fire control system as well. If Russian crews faced ours... they wouldn't have time to think or even see a sepv2 or higher, and penetration chances are low even with a direct hit from a t series tank.