Uh. Just no. As a professional, I’m telling you no.
The reasons are complex. Things about ground pressure, logistics, doctrine, combat service support, and training.
The biggest threat to modern MBT’s right now are budget and drones. And since effective countermeasures have been developed for ATGM’s, mines, advanced long rod penetrators, and IED’s drones are just another thing that will get solved with DOTMLPF over time. The bottom line is nothing else can replicate the triad of firepower-mobility-protection anywhere nearly as well as a tank. When engaging in direct combat the tank is still the most powerful and capable asset. IDK what the future holds, but I do know that until something else can represent the triad better the tank is still the dominant force.
Also, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from the Ukraine conflict. The level of gross incompetence demonstrated by the Russian military cannot be overstated. They have proven incompetent at every facet of war except for digging trenches and laying minefields. And even then, the fact that they are resorting to trenches and minefields in long term static positions is another sign of incompetence.
The idea of Russian sophistication in weapon design or military proficiency has been demonstrably false for decades. In fact, other than the Georgia war, it’s been nothing but pathetic. And even with the Georgia war, one could argue that the Georgians didn’t really even put up resistance. It is a logical conclusion that the Georgians gave up before they even really tried.
Whole post sounds like bullshit to me and pro American ,anti Russian bullshit at that.A professional? What are you a General?
Nothing I have said about Ukraine is untrue. UK have boots on the ground in Ukraine as advisers and I live among their relatives so I know what is going on.You might have been in the services but it sounds like it was a long time ago in a different scenario.You also seem to forget how old our tech is.
I haven’t seen CNN but war has certainly changed since my time.Nothing about he Ukraine seems to have any relation to operation Granby for example.
Both sides need to support any tank holding ground in so many ways and without air superiority it is hard to do that.It has been a big shock to many on both sides just how the game has changed lately.I can see a nuke coming the way things are going.I wonder if Putin will use a B29 : )
and Russia’s tech is any better? Let me remind you that they have upgraded far more tank chassis from the 80s than produce new ones since the start of the war, alongside this most of their air force was built between 1984-2007 and has seen a very concerning lack of modernisation and ability to adapt to it’s failures, resulting in a vastly incompetent and highly inefficient body, one not desirable for a major power’s air force
The only other nato ‘adversary’ (out of russia, iran, north korea and China) that holds a candle to modern NATO tech is currently China, who has done an exceedingly good job at improving it’s military in reaction to the changing environment of modern combat.
I was responding to somebody who talked about how old Russian kit is ,as I stated our kit in Ukraine is no newer,in many cases older. 1980s is forty years away.60 tons is still 60 tons as well when it comes to crossing country.
You need to remember that Ukraine is getting western gear that is forty year old hand me downs.USA is doing lend lease all over again.
Drones and mines are taking the tanks out there not other tanks.Ukraine is not War Thunder which was my original point.
I’m pretty sure that both Ukraine and Russia are currently leading in terms of understanding the nature of modern combat, at least when it comes to that theatre of war.
That shouldn’t be a surprise given that they are in situations where they’re forced to adapt to these cycles of innovation extremely rapidly, where the introduction of new weapon systems are only managing perhaps 2 months if not mere weeks of relevancy before their effectiveness is severely diminished.
Technological sophistication doesn’t seem to be the issue.
The issue in Europe right now is that there’s a massive lack of both hardware and ammunition.
The majority of European countries would’ve ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into this conflict, meanwhile Russia still has artillery superiority over Ukraine after years of this conflict, dispite Europe’s best efforts to overcome this disadvantage.
Europe is also extremely bureaucratic (read: slow) to adapt and even react with the urgency that is demanded.
I Don’t see how any ex-servicemen of NATO can have that much experience of what is happening in Ukraine and Russia.Its like watching the early years of ww2 again.Trying to stay game related but if Russias actions over the last two years mean that Ukraine can never join NATO then Putin has already won.He has that barrier that was all he ever wanted.The rest is just a sideshow.He got rid of Wagner too.Piont is if I am right then what the tanks are doing in that war are somewhat irrelevant as far as tactics go and its likely that Russias tanks are fine for their intended purpose.
Everything we’ve sent (afaik) is from the early 1990s at the youngest, with all of the domestic armor packages and most of the long-range strike weapons not being sent.
Innovations in wartime during information era transmissions make little to no difference. The ultimate answer is that tanks on the front are still the best breakthrough machines, and thus are the most likely to be targeted or squawked about in channels dedicated to said machines.
Iran’s modernization of the T72 is a decent enough upgrade. It just doesn’t have the air defense capabilities that China possesses.
I don’t underestimate China for that specific reason. They aren’t knock-off T-62s, they’re a whole different animal. Plus, their doctrine is more focused on trade routes in and near their waters. If they were to expand, their tanks are light enough that in the terrain they are expected to fight in, they’d rapidly have an advantage in most island fighting in limited numbers.
Might be another reason for the Army updating the stockpiles with the Booker.
Obviously, since the first wave of tankists who were there did not know what they were doing, didn’t have any stomach to fight innocent people, and left. I’m frankly worried that some were unalived because of it.
That and logistics didn’t keep up for those few who had a grasp of what they were doing and supported the move.
Particularly as a USMC tanker we have larger concerns with tank operations in unfavorable terrain. I would also like to point out that while the US Army said tank operations could not be done in Afghanistan the USMC deployed an entire company and effectively operated for years in Afghanistan.
Even in Ukraine using tanks is a lot more straightforward than operating in Afghanistan. I know their infrastructure is poor compared to most of Europe or the United States, but we operated in third world littoral countries with even worse infrastructure and terrain all the time with our tanks deployed with MEU’s.
You may choose not to believe me if you wish. shrug But, I don’t think that would be very wise.
Yeah, a lot of officers I worked with had a tendency to overblow enemy capabilities. Usually it was the guys that were trying to appear smart when they were average or guys that had toxic egos.
If that intended purpose is launching turrets into space while incinerating their crew. Then yes. IF their purpose is to dominate the battlefield, then, uh, no.
The US Army and the US Marine Corps are not the same thing,I know that from experience .The attitude between the two is a world apart.During Granby the British Army worked closely with the Marines and due to being similar in size the Marines were attentive to everything the British stated where as the US Army was so vast and pig headed it didn’t want to know.
Simply not true and not working out that way.Yours and my experience of tanks is not worth much over there from what I am hearing that was my point.
Afghanistan? How long ago? 10,20 30 years ago and with total Air superiority and against a bunch of farmers in Toyota’s? This is not Ukraine or Russia.
The UK ran no tanks in the Falkland Islands ,It was a foot sloggers war.
Maybe the Yanks would have moved into the Falklands, block paved it and built a McDonalds before moving in but not every country is the same is it?