The Tank is dead

[DRG]

This was posted in the past but it's still a "fun" read......I especially like the 5 gal gas can in front of the claymore....nasty

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

This was posted in the past but it's still a "fun" read......I especially like the 5 gal gas can in front of the claymore....nasty

Frankly I'm not sure that one would work on a modern MBT. The claymore is useless, and even if all 5 gal of gas hit the tank I doubt a fire on the outside would do much good.

Now pour your gas into the engine compartment and you'll probably at least immobilize it as the insulation is burnt off the wiring and it shorts out. But standing on the rear deck of a tank holding a 5 gal gas can doesn't sound to healthy to me unless you've stripped it of infantry support.

[IronDuke99]

In case I was not clear I believe the tank is very far from dead and was trying to make that point.

Below is a very interesting link from the recent UK Royal United Services Institute conference (one of many interesting talks from this conference) I direct readers to the second speaker from 22 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIg3LkAYNKM

He is talking about current war in Ukraine and Russian forces.

Lots of tanks, lots and lots of powerful artillery, very effective area air denial via SAMS, etc, trenches, and a lot of electronic warfare/jamming too.

The Russians have always been an Artillery army, it was their best arm even as far back as the Napoleonic era. In munitions terms whereas the West has gone increasingly precision, the Russians have gone for mass effect.

The Area air denial -if it works against the latest Western aircraft- really would be a game changer, since I strongly suspect Western forces will suffer more from the loss of air support than Russian style forces would, especially in the face of a very powerful enemy artillery.

From a British Army point of view I would say the lesson would be don't, under almost any circumstances, be fighting Russia in Eastern Europe, as a single Armoured Division (and that is the most UK is going to be able to generate for the foreseeable future) however well equipped and trained, is pretty much useless for that type of warfare in that type of theatre. Although, of course, it might be very useful indeed, elsewhere.

[IronDuke99]

One further point on my last post. The gentleman speaking in the video, a former Royal Marine, suggested that area air denial could lead to even Western troops getting as little as 20% of expected air support or less.

The F35 (initially supposed to be an affordable multi-role aircraft) has a flyway cost that is never likely to be much less than US $100-120 million per single aircraft, depending on it being an 'A', 'B' or 'C'. Add to that the cost of often very expensive Western Precision guided munitions and, of course, an expensively trained pilot.

F35 has, mainly frontal arc, stealth technology (if it carries no external weapons, that means it cannot, even when based relatively close to the enemy, as in on a Carrier, carry a great deal).

Now I ask people to consider, in terms of simple common sense, what level of losses would be acceptable with this, very expensive, aircraft. Or, to put it another way, how good does an area air denial SAM system need to be before using F35, and losing some, becomes a game not worth the candle?

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a F35, loaded with smart weapons and an experienced pilot is worth $150 million (strictly just in money terms). Is an objective worth, perhaps, losing one? Three, five or even ten of them? Is that likely to include supporting an infantry company? Me, I have my doubts.

Doubts made stronger by hearing Crab (sorry RAF) officers talking about going 'down town' in F35 ( as a mere trog I always thought that term had very little to do with doing CAS, but a great deal to do with the old RAF 'independent air force' story).
Just some thoughts.