![]() ![]() The shear number of 152mm artillery rounds being used is insane, and plainly obvious from the terrain in any footage I've seen. Walking around, on foot, with only a helmet and some kevlar is nothing compared to the amount of shrapnel that is in play in any of those warzones. ![]() APCs/IFVs have a bit, but Tanks have the most. ![]() The whole MLRS debate has demonstrated that the powers-that-be are worried about the artillery battle above all else (as is common in war, those 20km guns are called "the king of battle" for a reason).Īdvancing, or retreating, to positions while 100lb shrapnel bombs scatter around you is only possible when inside of armor. Or what? Are you going to hide inside of a trench all day, or get into a thin APC / IFV and get shredded before you even reach the front lines?Īrmor still matters. When there's 152mm 100lb shrapnel artillery bombs dropping all around you, the only safe location is inside of 200mm+ thick steel plates. That said, I wouldn't necessarily choose AFV crew if I was picking a job in an Army. Obviously the Russian commanders didn't watch this classic film when it was repeated on Sunday afternoon TV. Sending columns of tanks in single file down main roads and then getting them blown up is basically the plot of "A Bridge Too Far", a.k.a Operation Market Garden in WW2, when the Allies tried to quickly cross multiple bridges into Germany, and discovered the hard way that only the tanks at the front can actually fight, and that if they get stuck, so do all of the others. Tanks work best when used in combined arms ops, with supporting infantry, artillery and air. the countermeasures but the Russian's tank losses have arisen partly because of their massive tactical incompetence and can't in themselves be taken to mean that tanks are now useless. Tanks will probably reduce in focus given their massive expense vs. > a guy basically explaining that tanks may be becoming less of a focus in modern armies, as new weapons and tactics easily counter them. Wouldn't that be the exact kind of technical information an opponent would want to design armor or develop the right tactics for it? For instance, if you increase your side's armor to neutralize it, then your tanks can fight more aggressively. The one about the Chinese projectile seems like it could be pretty bad. > Most of the above seem more in the realm of commercial in confidence leaks, and or embarrassing information for a military than anything that's significant. My understanding is that it's been essential for a long time that tanks travel with significant infantry support. We're seeing "a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine," but a lot of that seems to be about Russian organization and tactics, not necessarily "how great armored vehicles and tanks are."įor instance: early in the war I read some (US Marine Corps?) study that was online about the Russian "Battalion Tactical Group" that noted some deficiencies that may have made them far more vulnerable in Ukraine (IIRC too many tanks, too little infantry and support troops, too centralized command and control). > Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are. Whilst these are 'classified leaks' they are not exactly strategic leaks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |