I keep hearing that MBTs are being used in the wrong way in Ukraine. So the question is, how would having infantry support for the MBTs have prevented the latter from being smoked by FPV drones?
I keep hearing that MBTs are being used in the wrong way in Ukraine.
I have another question, Ukies keep sending lonely tank/ifv into grey zone or even zigger occupied territory, what is this strategy?
They are the jungler
So if they send 4 tanks that will work better against drones?
4 tanks are more likely to achieve whatever the frick they are trying to do there
You can't cluster anything in this war. And if you do you will get ATACMSd or mass artyd.
By what logic?
If it's too dangerous, due to drones, for one tank what difference will three more make, other than present three more targets?
they usually just shoot at buildings or trenches, three more will destroy shit faster, no?
It's better than sending one tank four times. Concentration of force is a fundamental tenet of warfare. Rather than sending tanks in penny packets to be wasted, you send more tanks then they have countermeasures in one local area.
The lines on the map are a rough estimate of where the frontline is and are not a wall that sepparates both armies.
You can have russian soldiers hiding in some ruined house ~5km in blue territory and ukranian Bradleys like 1km in red territory.
When we see an AFV Leroy Jenkins the enemy lines it could just be armored support ariving to relive pined soldiers, that went on a reconisance mission.
Because this way they'd just lose 1 tank or IFV instead of several in just one assault. Due to the proliferation of drones, tactical surprise is extremely hard.
Slavs can't into modern warfare. The Russians do this too. Single tank or group of tanks/ IFVs moving in a column across an open field is common.
Combined arms would let the infantry advance farther and faster than the meat grinder. Infantry is what wins wars, but that doesn't mean we should stop supporting them because muh drones.
Because sending columns of armored vehicles at once has historically worked great in this war, right?
No but using a proper wedge attack formation with proper armor crews who actually know what they're doing and actually following up on an assault does work (see Iraq v1)
Iraq v1 was a substantially different war from today. Iraq v2 was a substantially different war from today. Both sides are nearly omnipresent on a front line tactical level. Massed forces are struck immediately.
shut the frick up, americans also did this.
>Posts picture of Americans using multiple tanks
What did you mean by this?
any kind of group of vehicles is immediate artillery magnet
without air superiority but with drone surveillance it's impossible to concentrate forces in traditional manner. You'll just get pulverized by artillery long before you actually reach the front.
>C4ISR
Both sides have sensors in depth. There is a level of battlefield surveillance going on that has not existed in any previous conflict. It's pretty much impossible to maneuver anything (including aircraft) without the other side knowing about it. Russia has 3 air defense bubbles over the battle area. That is what Ukraine needs glide bombs. Ukraine cannot use NATO tactics that rely on air superiority and NATO is moronic for suggesting it.
The lack of stuff like aa weapons, ammo for artillery, aircraft, AFVs, manpower puts pressure on other elements of the army, namely infantry and its supporting elements.
This leads to atempts at overcompensating with the stuff they have. Which is why we saw destroyed Abrahamsters and HIMARS.
The solution is to get more of everything to Ukraine, mainly ammo, small arms and aa weapons.
No, the question is how different would a modern armed force actually capable of combined arms use them.
Russia vs. Ukraine is like Iran vs. Iraq.
How is "combined" arms going to prevent armored and mechanised columns from being smoked by FPV drones? Are F-22s or F-35s going to shoot down quadcopter drones with AIM-9Xs?
FPV drones are not more capable than mortars or artillery, yet those don't entirely prevent combat maneuvers, how does that work?
ISR, your own fires and EW, FPV drone operators have to be even close to the front than mortar crews, they are very vulnerable to counter-fire.
Mortars or artillery can't do ISR and hit moving targets whilst being in a package small enough to fit several inside a backpack of your regular grunts whilst just costing few hundred bucks
>FPV drones are not more capable than mortars or artillery
Dumbest shit I read on this board this year.
That's because of Dunning-Kruger.
The FPV drone has a "bullet with a name on it" effect because you see the pilot picking a target and hitting it. You don't see the misses, you don't see the ones brought down by jamming, you don't see how much time is spent on the prowl.
If FPVs were really that effective then the frontline wouldn't exist, as any man on either side would be dead. It's like thinking a sniper is the most effective asset in a war, because he puts his crosshairs on target and pulls the trigger.
FPVs pick off people as needed/opportunities arise. Mortars and artillery win battles.
By smoking the drones first and then moving too quickly for the other side to react in force.
With what sherlock?
>Are F-22s or F-35s going to shoot down quadcopter drones with AIM-9Xs?
More like ELINT and EWAR are going to shut down drones and track down drone controllers to annihilate them with precision fire.
>measure is invented
>nah bro my countermeasures would defeat it trivially and perfectly every time, I'm just built different bro, I don't even have to worry about it
Literally describing what the US did moron, drones weren’t invented yesterday and nobody in this war is the first to think to use them as weapons
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Islamic-State-and-Drones-Release-Version.pdf
>One key component of this strategy has been the kinetic targeting of individual Islamic State drone
engineers, drone operators, and drone suppliers; the facilities used by the group to enhance and
manufacture drones; and the areas where Islamic State drones have been launched and/or the group’s pilots trained. For example, during the summer of 2017, “U.S. warplanes … destroyed several Islamic State drone depots, machine workshops and pilot schools … [and] killed eight commanders said to be responsible for obtaining, arming and distributing the drones” The goal of
these efforts, according to the U.S. military, has been “to remove the militants’ ‘tactical ability to get
their systems airborne,’” and it is believed to have been effective, at least as a short-term solution.
The F-35s will destroy the artillery that's actually doing all the tank killing.
The F-35s will destroy the artillery that's actually doing all the tank kill...ACK!
I don't read potato runes, but I recognize the word OSINT, which means that the data this is drawing from is heavily skewed towards weapons systems with integrated cameras and recording features.
C'mon, dude, Ukrainians don't fire artillery blind, they always have drone eyes on target. Their hits are no less recorded.
Aircraft can spot drone operators. Apache > drone
>Are F-22s or F-35s going to shoot down quadcopter drones with AIM-9Xs?
No, they will shoot them down with their AESA radars you dumb frick.
>How is "combined" arms going to prevent armored and mechanised columns from being smoked by FPV drones?
By bombing the factories and infrastructure required to use them and assassinating the people with the know how to rig together new types, in case you haven't noticed neither side has air superiority so it's hard to make this happen.
They could. They could use their guns for the job for even more bang for their buck.
A P-51 Mustang could wipe a drone battalion on its lonesome with a steady eye. A godamn Cessna with machine guns compares favorably to Russia's strongest drone models.
The opposing sides' lack of ability to contest the air is crippling to the point you can't say it represents anything beyond a freak occasion.
Maybe you missed the memo but Russian piloted aircrafts doesn't appear above frontlines since March 2022
you left out a piece of the puzzle. Combined arms isn't just infantry and tanks, it's infantry, tanks, air, space, electromagnetic warfare, artillery, and so on. EW would probably be the most useful thing to stop FPVs and any assault would see jamming equipment being used. Artillery and air should be trying to suppress FPV operators. I guess infantry might have support equipment to stop drones like those fancy jammer guns. I'm guessing we'll eventually see anti drone drones, which just smash into enemy drones while protecting their propellers.
I'm sure doctrine is being rewritten every day at this point, and guys behind the scene are scrambling to find out how to mitigate FPVs
abraams is shit case closed
>destroyed by a t72
>has blow out panels making it a more boring version of russian turret tossers
>massive mantlet weakspot
>fpv drones can just fly straight into blowout panels because intentional engineering design
mutt morons
why can no one get the design of the tank correct?
>we don't need to save the lives of our tank crewmen *~~))
we know, that's why western tanks are better. T-shitboxes are just death traps while the Abram's crew will probably live to fight another day.
they can kill another day too if they dont leave windows on the tank designed to be shot at
be like challenger tank
or merkava
but mainly be challenger
best tank
0 blowholes
cool
>xaxaxaxa Puccia doesn't need to save the lives of their tankers
The infantry support meme is moronic. It's only good for cities.
>I base my entire lense of the universe only on what I can intuit with limited, immediately available information, and only the surface level at that
Thanks for letting us know you're proud of being stupid on purpose.
MBT's are first contact specialized.
Because of MBT's and terrain that makes them hard to remove with artillery; Bunkers. Bunkers are hard to retain now. Because of tanks, bunkers are near impossible to make effective.
Taking the fire from whatever a stationary target has, and dishing back a penetrating blow. Tank defenses cost more than bunkers in the long run so this is a net loss to the opposing side.
A tank has phased out so many elements of defense it's hard to recognize their role once they're phased out of practice.
Current tanks are designed for deserts. Combat with long lines of sight with battle plans to meet an enemy that can't properly flank you without air/satellite intelligence. A pre-planned war along the scale of Iraq wars. In a rapid offensive men on foot have a hard time catching a re-deployment in time.
Older version of tank warfare is vague in two ways. Angles they expected to meet enemy targets, like a streetfight/town where muzzle attention is important. A shorter gun, smaller turret and a faster vehicle. Second is weight distribution, if its too heavy for the terrain like a beach or hilly terrain with a tall tank that can tip/damage tracks.
A tank is a resource hog. A large target. Not very good at being alone, no visibility. Requires constant updates. Easy to ambush. Basically a "Knight on a chess table", not the rook. Air/Artillery is the rook/bishop. Intelligence is queen.
When you have a million soldiers with an unprepared war to defend against and long range making your "mobile bunkers" move constantly against a more modern opponent. It makes tanks seem like paper. Ukraine wiped enough tanks used wrong. Abrams tanks are no different. I bet none of the tanks destroyed were penetrated through their front turret. (and most weapons usually can't penetrate front of a T80 turret)
>Current tanks are designed for deserts.
lol, no theyre not
>Current tanks are designed for deserts.
Virtually every tank currently in service was designed for fighting in West Germany.
The larger problem was NATO advisors assuming they could just attack Soviet era Russian defensive lines. The Soviets actually did studies on how to build these defenses. NATO never actually has zero practice assaulting defense in depth, and there are very few people around from the Cold War who even have some experience.
NATO would have systematically destroyed all air defense in the area using stealth bombers and ensure at least local fire superiority before attempting breaching operations.
>NATO would have....
Ok. Cool story. So launching SEAD into Russia? I'm guessing Russia would have zero response to a direct NATO attack on the Motherland?
yes, you get it, if NATO was actually directly involved in this war, it would look vastly different, so you can stop with that bs
>zigger cope
>but what aboooout Black folks
You got one (1) win with those minefields stopping Russia from being totally defeated in 2023.
It will not last forever, and you know it. Specially with Ukraine getting tons of new stuff soon.
That's why you are shilling in /k/ on a friday night: you're afraid of what's going to happen in a few months.
>used in the wrong way
Sounds like overconfident dunning-kruger type assertions. Things have changed so much that all sides are still trying to figure out what the "right" and "wrong" ways are. Much of the old WW2-era wisdom about how to use tanks doesn't apply any more.
Factors to consider:
1. Omnipresent UAV reconnaissance - it's too easy to get detected. It's bad enough for an individual tank, but combined with (3.) it makes assembling in mass without getting bombed near-impossible
2. Varying levels of sensors/vision on the tanks themselves - you get some very blind Russian tanks with only older-generation night vision, and you get some Western and rare Russian tanks with excellent thermal vision which helps the crew see and identify targets much better than plain optics in both day and night.
3. Fires have gotten deadlier. Traditional dumb artillery fires can be massed without actually massing the artillery pieces together, plus there's newer-gen artillery weapons that have precision guidance.
4. Minefields exceeding the size and density of anything experienced in the past. Both Russian and Western tactics for dealing with minefields have been found inadequate to cope with the sheer volume of mines.
>Minefields
this is the only genuine win for Russia. Without those they would have already lost.
It's interesting how nobody foresaw that despite being a classic tactic going back to WW2 and how there's not a good counter to them except having lots of time and aerial superiority (which is impossible in this war).
Letting Russia dig in after Nov 22 was probably unavoidable, but still doomed this to become a matter of attrition.
The depth of the minefields don't matter as much as the inability to suppress the enemy covering them.
yeah, but they need local air superiority for that. Speaking of those F16...
JFC. This place is amateur hour. A defensive line is more than just a minefield. The Russians built 6 as doctrine.
Why are you pretending that russians follow actual doctrines and they didn't just spammed mines all over the place?
This wasn't Kursk in WW2. This was mobiks in retreat emptying trucks full of old soviet mines and using attack helos as QRF at maximum range to stop armoured vehicles.
Which worked for enough time to make a difference, but it has nothing to do with muh soviet doctrines.
They did both. They spammed mines at the unit level, and had deliberate integrated defenses built at strategic locations.
>turdie cope
There's still US soldiers in Iraq.
Vietnam is low key an US ally nowadays against China
The Taliban beg the US for food and wish they never left
Trying to imply that these pictures depict the exact same circumstances or have any relation to offensive operations against prepared enemy defenses would rile up some uneducated people I guess.
Pic related has a direct relationship to the operations in Ukraine and if you don't know why then you are too uninformed to discuss this, and please consider kys.
>And you are recruiting Black folks!
>Crisis of Competency.
would.
Aaand thread derailed gj. Wankers
Maybe one of your "epic military wins" against the US should have been stopping all the guys taking the gold.
Russian military manuals are worthless because they don't follow them unlike american Cold War mithology says.
That's why ukies stopped their attacks and changed tactics when they found too difficult to cross those minefields while russians keep dying like cattle doing moronic frontal attacks across the fronline every day.
the US didn't steal shit from that shithole and actually left it better than it found it for once. But turdie Black folk do not grok civilization.
Ukraine did not follow NATO doctrine or advice though and due to whatever circunstances (moronic politics, enemy action) they didn't even have access to the materiel necessary.
Did you not read the first 3 bullets?
>they didn't even have access to the materiel necessary.
this is the main reason. I remember how all the new Bradleys and Leo's weren't yet ready while they did raids in Humvees.
The window for a quick defeat of the russians by reaching the Azov sea was too small and they couldn't make it on time.
Pic related. You really have to wonder why APS-2 couldn't get them the materiel in time.
>Pic related
yes, we know russians are obssesed with blacks. Specially after Obama dismissed them as weak and impotent.
Tell me about APS-2 and it's significance in this war.
A lot of issues with Ukraine's military stems from their officer corps training still largely following 80s Soviet doctrine. There's been a number of instructors mentioning that the school in Kharkiv (might be misremembering, whichever of the two is eastern most) is especially bad about this whereas schools in Lviv are trying to integrate more western doctrine in their teaching, particularly emphasizing initiative at lower levels of command.
>Soviet doctrine.
Don't both sides have this "problem"? That factor should cancel out unless there are other factors.
>Ukraine should have attacked in April! t. American general
>No Leopards, No Challengers, No Bradleys, No Marders, no cluster shells, no ATACMS, no airforce(capable of actually doing anything to Russian airforce there)
Are American generals actually moronic?
Yes. They planned to fight to the last Ukrainian.
Wrong, it's actually to the last russian.
>Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
I'm guessing Russia is kill in two more weeks?
ITT
>ERMAHGERD QUADCOPTERS
America hasn't had their MBTs challenged meaningfully since ww2.
They're doing G*d's work on the world stage by countering Russia and China (sans all applicable criticisms) but theyre most recent mass armour campaign was Fallujah and no one should take that as a y sort of way to conduct armoured warfare.
Modern 2nd world war is just FPV drone and artillery/missile spam.
Until someone creates absolute anti-drone countermeasures that cucks every enemy's drone except yours.
Literally WW1 tier, Ukraine and Russia will duke it out for a decade.
More like the Korean War
Early war Russia was being pants on head moronic with them making the classic blunder of driving though cities.
Since then I think both sides are doing ok given the situation, the Russians need more mine clearing vehicles so entire armoured attacks aren't forced to move single file but other than that I don't see completely stupid shit that often now.
>I don't see completely stupid shit that often now
It's still happening constantly on zigger side, they've lost so much shit they use bikes and golf carts instead.
What do you see them doing that fundamentally flawed at the tactical level?
I see command telling them to push without the numbers for a breakthrough but I don't really see tank commanders fricking up as much now.
Another Abrams?
yes, another Abrams that took a hit and didn't blow up instantly killing its crew unlike a shitty russian tank.