Realistically is there anything Russia could do to stop an armored tank attack using western-supplied tanks from Ukraine?
Realistically is there anything Russia could do to stop an armored tank attack using western-supplied tanks from Ukraine?
Realistically is there anything Russia could do to stop an armored tank attack using western-supplied tanks from Ukraine?
If they micro their Burratino correctly yeah they can
Burrito isn’t cutting it as it only stuns them at best and you will still need to move in for the kill. Longbow or ATACMS work best vs superheavies. Alternatively you can use MARS or cluster planes on the road they take from spawn. Or the classic Jaeger or Leo1 spam.
>longbow
>atacms
>mars
>jaeger
>leo1
Which team has these retard
You never play blue vs blue? For red v blue you can just spam the superior tanks.
But blue has the superior tanks
thought the tank is making sõy face
I'm sorry sir, it's terminal reddit
yes, AT missiles actually work, attacking is diffcult, even against vatniks.
>yes, AT missiles actually work, attacking is diffcult, even against vatniks
Lmao; as usual the most reasonable comment gets ignored in a sea of r/ncd posters and vatnikposting
They do still have artillery and anti-tank missiles, but the western tanks rolling in are going to be operating as if they have chest codes turned on.
>daily mail doesn't know what blow out panels are
>neither do vatniks
>daily mail is russan propaganda confirmed
>blow out pannels
Overhyped memes
They save lives but are far from being a magical forcefield
All the ammo ''blows out'' so the tank can't fire
The crew is left with two options
>Abandoon vehicle and try to not get shot
>Try to charge the enemy like an arab peace truck and get obliterated for good
>Overhyped memes
>They save lives
You've A) never put yourself in harms way in any manner so your opinion on what is or isnt a meme has lost all credibility
And B) the fact that they do the very thing they're designed for means they have acceptable levels of hype
They are good at what they are designed for
Which is damage control, they are not designed to make a tank invincible as some coping retards here claim
Saving the crew is good and can provide a long term advantage, but it is inconsequential in an individual assault
If the tanks are unable to shoot the battle is over, the crews are not going to drive closer and hit the enemy with swords lol
>they are not designed to make a tank invincible as some coping retards here claim
May I see those claims
Probably are legit but 99% of the time I see anon discuss this they are talking in terms of crew survivability
>Saving the crew is good and can provide a long term advantage, but it is inconsequential in an individual assault
The crew can always try again with a new or repaired vehicle, this is what is truly important on a battlefield
I will argue that due to the limited quantity of these vehicles being pledged and that it required arm bending throughout NATO for many months we can't really consider these assets as "replaceable". We also don't know in that the UAF will allow crews to be unutilized when their vehicle is knocked out. They could do what the Germans did in WWII and just send them right back onto the line as infantry.
>I will argue that due to the limited quantity of these vehicles being pledged and that it required arm bending throughout NATO for many months we can't really consider these assets as "replaceable".
If you lose an Abrams but are able to move the crew to a T-72 your still replacing the tank on the line, though your point is fair regardless
>We also don't know in that the UAF will allow crews to be unutilized when their vehicle is knocked out
My bet is they either get another, or get rerolled (with training) into something else
>May I see those claims
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/57350924/#57351258
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/43751508/#43759492
Yes
Do this
https://sys.PrepHole.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fvideo%2Fnews%2Fvideo-1351483%2FShocking-video-shows-ISIS-destroying-American-M1-Abrams-tank.html
how is the media this fucking stupid
>obliterates
>handheld
>ISIS
this was a kornet 9m133 TOW (definitely not handheld) against a saudi m1 (export variant i may add) so its lacking the extra armor
>export variant
Like the one getting shipped to Ukraine?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/01/27/the-tungsten-m-1-how-ukraines-tanks-will-differ-from-americas/
Na, the Saudi's got the shitty ones without any dense materials. Supposedly some kind of composite. Europoors don't want DU armor because they are pussies and mudmen don't get it because they don't deserve it.
That said Tungsten is still inferior to DU, and any tank can and will be penetrated if shot with dedicated AT anywhere except the front of the turret or hull. Tanks get knocked out, the difference is that even most of the Western tanks aren't safe to be in if penetrated while the Abrams most definitely is, keeping the trained crew is more important to maintaining combat effectiveness than the tank itself.
Good to know why not a manpad? Looks like a normal manpad
You can tell it's not a fucking MANPAD by the fact that it did more than gently tickle the tank, since MAN Portable Air Defence systems do not bother with anti tank warheads.
In March of last year there was an incident in which an armored battalion of the Ukrainian forces stopped in an open field to prepare to cross a river bridge.
It was spotted by a Russian drone and the follow on artillery destroyed the entire armored battalion in about 15 minutes.
As long as the Russians have forward observers and artillery arrayed across the battle space armor will not have a great effect.
Artillery trumps armor every time. As long as the Russians can prevent Ukrainian air to surface attacks on their artillery and have an artillery advantage the Russians will control the battle space.
Also consider a modern tank division that numbers 400 modern main battle tanks requires 600,000 gallons of fuel to operate every day. You are talking about 100 fuel trucks that only carry 5,000 gallons of fuel at a time operating near the forward edge of the battle space along with their support personnel and equipment.
As long as the Russians have artillery and forward observers and can prevent Ukrainian air forces from engaging their artillery the advantage is to the Russians, by a long shot. Meat grinder it is.
Cool
Doe the Russians even have artillery that can pierce an Abrams?
You're asking if artillery can penetrate a tank?
You are a tourist here, huh?
You think what's left of Russian artillery can reliably hit an Abram's tank head on and penetrate it?
Don't you have War Thunder to grind?
You don't have to blow up a tank to knock it out. Artillery can still throw treads even if it doesn't hit square on.
realistically? muh nukes
but I'm sure some desperate vatnik shill can try to spread some delusional theory about how their futile resistance will work somehow. QED:
>muh nukes
Tanks are actually very resistant against nukes. Unless they're very close to the epicenter of the nuke strike most tanks will shrug off a nuke.
what about the crews? will they be ok?
anyway, I'm pretty sure that eventuality would mean the end of the war with NATO boots on the ground, if not the chinks themselves cutting off putin and his crew and taking over russia in the blink of an eye.
It's a win/win situation for ukraine in my point of view.
>what about the crews? will they be ok?
Yes, tanks have NBC protection, they'll be protected from radiation long enough to drive to a safe location.
Alive, but not very happy about it.
>In March of last year there was an incident in which an armored battalion of the Ukrainian forces stopped in an open field to prepare to cross a river bridge.
It was spotted by a Russian drone and the follow on artillery destroyed the entire armored battalion in about 15 minutes.
Do you have evidence of this encounter? Ukraine wasn't really using that much massed armor in the opening stages and it's highly dubious that Russian tube artillery has ever been accurate enough to hit individual vehicles. At least, I've never seen Russian artillery hit point targets in the hundreds of hours of footage I've seen.
And there's a ton of specific info that should make it easy to identify. An entire armored battalion worth of wrecks, located in an open field, near a river crossing, happened in the earliest part of the war...
Especially that last part got me curious. Exactly which river was being crossed that already had Russian artillery in range and set up, who were already using drones for artillery spotting (from what I remember not awfully common yet at that stage) and who also were able to then provide fire on a random open field with enough volume and accuracy to wipe out a battalion who were preparing to move out?
There is lierally no evidence of this at all, it was cope made up as a couter to all the Russian columns being blown up at the time.
>stopped in an open field
Well there's the mistake. Don't stop till you've rammed down the doors of putlers bunker.
Projecting HARD right here
Yes, the piggie BBQ was quite good that day
Why don't any of the vehicles have the "Z" symbol visible ?
They were the 74th GMRB. Not a "Z" unit. They used the "O" inconsistently like the others from the Central Military District.
Right and CNN told you that the Russians would run out of fuel and ammo last March
They did, which is why they retreated from the Kiev offensive axis.
Why do you retards always try to paint the one prediction that actually came true into some kind of gotcha?
It is hysterically funny that you morons unironically get your battle field intelligence from CNN
>CNN says the russians are running out of key supplies
>the russian perform a goodwill gesture
Many such cases in this war anon, don't get salty just because your brother and father have made appearances on this board on the receiving end of a ukie drones
You'll be sent to join them soon enough
>observers find data
>experts make predictions on it
>CNN will quote experts
>"HURR DURR YOU GET FIELD INTELLIGENCE FROM CNN"
Anon if you stop watching CNN yourself, you won't think everyone is getting the information from the same place you do.
>brings up CNN and how they're telling bullshit
>Cites the one example where CNN was actually correct in their prediction
>Gets this fact pointed out to him
>You're all NPCs who get their battlefield intelligence from CNN
Why are poltards like this? Why is CNN living rent free in their heads? I can't even remember when I last read an article from CNN. They're not really that relevant anymore.
You've claimed this before, when people asked for specific you disappeared.
The only mass loss of Ukrainian armour that I know of happened in Kherson on the first or second day of the war, and was a Ukrainian armoured column having a meeting engagement with the entire Russian invasion force from Crimea. Something like 10 tanks and and some more armoured vehicles.
The fact it was in Kherson makes me suHispanicious it's something to do with the Ukrainian commander who ordered all the minefields removed before the invasion.
mucho obrigado
Not really. NATO outplaced Russia in terms of sensors and fire control decades ago so even a battalion of tanks could carve through Russian lines. NATO tanks could snipe Russian tanks from outside their range and air support on both sides has been spotty.
Could? Yes.
Would? Now there's the problem.
There's many ways in which you can slow down or outright halt an armored attack, even against the best vehicles pretty much straight from the assembly line manned by highly trained professionals. However, the better the equipment and training, the more difficult it becomes.
On top of that, most ways to stop such an attack require high amounts of coordination, preparation, and having the right tools at the right places. Considering what we know about Russia's state, this is exactly where it becomes dicey. They do have artillery, tanks and all kinds of equipment that at the very least could disable most armor if used right. But the real question is: will they be able to have that stuff in the right places and then be able to use them in a coordinated response?
Taking out a Leopard, a Challenger or whatever western vehicle doesn't really mean much if the rest of the assault it was a part of does break through your defenses.
No, NATO tanks are literally unstoppable.
Even a single tank could realistically blast ruzzian orcs all the way to Moscow without even refueling.
sure is nafo in here
When Russia is losing ground to dudes in Humvees it begs the question of how they're going to stop an assault from a heavily armored force.
Watch them break down
America got folded by dudes in sandals with aks in a week
>America got folded by dudes in sandals with aks in a week
Okay, this bait has officially gone rancid
When?
we are talking about cringe doge fanclub, dunno how is the war going right now, only saw some guy without hands being recruited in ukraine
In 1988, a simulated armored unit consisting of tanks, APCs and manikins was subjected to 56 shells under Soviet-style fire direction. The US model predicted severe damage to the infantry and APCs, and indeed there was. They also predicted low effect on the armor, while the Soviet model predicted “30% damage.” In reality, they achieved 67% damage to the tanks, far exceeding either prediction.
Fragments damaged road wheels, detracked tanks, set one of the vehicles on fire, and penetrated the fighting compartments, injuring the manikin crews. The key to the different models was the US model expecting damage to be limited to direct hits, while the Soviets realised (likely due to their own testing) the power contained in artillery shell fragments. (Images below from the article linked)
In this 1988 test, much to the Army’s surprise, none of the damage to the tanks was caused by a direct hit. This spurred a 4 year long program to better characterise the effects of massed fire, especially against armored vehicles.
For more information, I recommend reading “Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can't Kill Armor?” (page 8) here:
http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf
I cant seem to open the PDF, could you answer some questions?
1: I'm assuming these vehicles were stationary?
2: Which vehicles were used, and what kind of artillery? Were there any subsequent changes in the design or armor of said vehicles afterwards?
3: What was the volume of fire? How many shells were fired at once and by how many pieces? Did they get to adjust their fire, and if so based on what?
4:What formation were the test vehicles arrayed in? How large was the target area?
I might be forgetting some, but these questions are important to distinguish if this experiment can be applied to the situation in Ukraine. There's no denying that near hits will still destroy vehicles, but the question is if those near hits can be achieved by the current Russian forces on the ground and not the hypothetical Soviet forces circa 1988.
"There's no denying that near hits will still destroy vehicles, but the question is if those near hits can be achieved by the current Russian forces on the ground and not the hypothetical Soviet forces circa 1988."
It is not rational to assume Russians can not identify targets and adjust artillery fires by radio and encrypted signal.
Depending on the equipment available in that area and the time they actually have to pinpoint the location, fire, and then adjust said fire, I'd actually say it's not as irrational as you might think.
Who's manning those guns? Do they have enough training hitting moving targets? What caliber are the shells they're firing? Do they have enough pieces in one area to provide an effective volume of fire, or does it come down to a shell every minute or so? I've seen the effects of Russian artillery during the war so far, and I'm not impressed about neither their accuracy nor their speed.
Why have Ukrainian tank forces had so little impact to date ?
How would we know if they had or not?
It would be like your twink ass trying to stop me from hold you down and violating your asshole
They could withdraw to their own borders, work on being good boys to lift the global sanctions, and start cleaning up the corruption that characterizes their government and society. That'd stop western supplied tank attacks pretty fucking well.
>and start cleaning up the corruption that characterizes their government and society
we talking about russia or ukraine
Yes.
Stop worrying about the other and fix their own seeping assholes.
I dont think EU membership will help that fast it will be disaster.
Sounds like a hassle
Yes? At the strategic level russians are fucked in the head. But their weapons for the most part are still capable of disabling and destroying western armor if given the chance. It'll all hinge on how they plan to repel an armored attack. Multiple mine fields, pre zoned artillery at chokepoints, fast infantry dismounts wirh rpgs, interlocking trench systems full of atgms would probably work decently well. The big maybe here though is how comprehensive has russias fortification been of the wider front line.
Genuine question from a tacticslet, do you think superior Western arty could crack defenses like that? A long range GLDB whatever to destroy ammo dumps, and maybe the HIMARs ammo that launches those anti infantry tungsten balls to shred the trenches.
>do you think superior Western arty could crack defenses like that?
Yes. It would be a pain in the ass because you'd need to do the mine clearing under fire, but it would be possible.
ATGMs would need to be suppressed, use IFVs and 50 cals to keep RPG teams away, lay smoke to disrupt line of sight, use angles and hull down position if possible.
If the minefields were meant to funnel you through a killzone, you'll have to demine and breach paths through it.
In theory the best strat would have been to keep their own tanks in reserve, wait for the Ukes to commit theirs somewhere, and then try to take out as many as possible with superior numbers of tanks and fully commit the planes even if many will be taken out by air defence because they have a very valuable target
but they keep pissing tanks away in the likes of Vuhledar so I guess this plan isn't happening
Yes I agree, bum rush the western equipment i’m sure that will work out well for them. Surely western technology wouldn’t be able to handle it.
I said it would be the best option available, not that it would succeed.
Also they would ideally outnumber Ukraine's tanks by a far greater margin and, as I said, commit the air force in a way that simply isn't an option for Ukraine.
They could pull out from Ukraine. That would stop tank assaults in Ukraine pretty well. Other than that in a pure tank v tank engagement they will be outgunned in practically every way. The only way they will have a chance is if they can leverage other facets of the battlefield to their advantage. Fat chance of that though considering how much of a shitshow their whole operation is.
No. Western tanks essentially turn you into a marvel hero.
buzz bombs and artillery
just have to wait for the tank to sit still for a moment
Depends on which platforms we are talking about. BFV's, and Strykers (whenever these arrive in quantity) are certainly vulnerable to your standard range of infantry portable AT launchers and artillery/air strikes. Leapord 1's are rather lightly armored and amount more to a mobile gun carrier than a true MBT so same goes for them. These account for the majority of the amor getting sent to the UAF. Now when we start talking about the Leopard II's and M1's then things get a little more robust, still not invulnerable though. However with M1's not likely to reach Ukraine by the years end much less the proposed offensive we can't really consider them. Leopard II's won't be arriving in considerable quantity. Ukraine needed a 1000 tanks yesterday. Not several dozen assorted models in a few months to a year.
In around a year I doubt Russia will have much weaponry left to fight an M1 though.
There is no reason for you or me to speculate on when Russia will run out of "insert equipment here". The conflict has been very short on verifiable metrics and quantitative data thus far, that aside.
Anon what do you believe it takes to neutralize/immobilize an M1? We have plenty of documentation from the fighting in Syria and Iraq to show the vulnerabilities and limitations of the platform. Additionally, the M1 is a logistical hassle due to its weight and fuel consumption, part of why it was getting beat to the chase by the BFV during both invasions of Iraq when it came to tank kills.
finally some good fucking posts.
They are justifying the use of CNN for their arguments. Because CNN has "experts "
LOL,,LMAO even,,,
No, we're just pointing out that CNN only reports on sloppy seconds any War Enjoyer™ has already seen a week before.
Have my (you).
>>CNN says the russians are running out of key supplies
>>the russian perform a goodwill gesture
I don't need to justify it, they've been vindicated multiple times since last February
All the shit that was used against western tanks in the middle east
Plus
>Artillery
>Planes
>More tanks
>RPG-30s
>Even captured western ATGMs
I doubt it.