Using tanks in modern warfare situations. Aren’t they sitting ducks if the opposition is equipped with anti-tank weapons? What are tanks good for in modern combat?
In: 63
Tanks used in isolation are very vulnerable in modern combat.
Attack helicopters used in isolation are very vulnerable in modern combat.
Infantry equipped with anti-tank weapons used in isolation are very vulnerable in modern combat.
All army elements are just pieces in a bigger puzzle. Tanks, mechanized infantry, air cavalry all have to be used together in a “combined arms” doctrine.
Tanks have their role, but they need to be supported by infantry and vice-versa.
Sure, anti tank weaponry can make a tank very sad. But a tank’s answer to *so much stuff* is ‘screw you, I’m many tons of terrifyingly fast all-terrain armoured killing machine’. In the game of rock-paper-scissors, ‘I’m a tank your argument is invalid’ is a surprisingly powerful move.
Both Syria and the last kerfuffle in Ukraine demonstrate what happens when a combined arms force meets a pure infantry force – the pure infantry inflict more casualties and delays than expected, but nonetheless lose pretty decisively.
If prepared defensive positions can be disrupted, tanks are near unstoppable, much like if air-superiority is achieved, you can drop bombs out of a dump truck.
Tanks carry powerful cannons, can move quickly, and require specialized weapons to take them out. Overall it’s a lot better for you to have tanks than to *not* have tanks.
Are they vulnerable in certain situations? Yes. But tanks are more mobile than a handful of dudes with anti-tank weapons. They can move and fire, and a group of tanks can be really tough to defeat. Plus, once you know where they are, the dudes holding the anti-tank weapons are also extremely vulnerable. They don’t have a bunch of armor protecting them. Their best defense is that the tank guy doesn’t know they are around. They lose that defense once they fire.
Tanks are infantry support against entrenched positions or armored vehicles or enemies lacking in AT capabilities.
In the reverse they’re also used in entrenched positions on the defense.
Though during the Iraq war they were used to blitz the inferior Iraqi armored divisions, as most of the country was wide open desert.
They still have their role, but its becoming more and more of a niche role. Cost/benefit of big armored divisions is getting very skewed. There are so many ways to threaten them nowadays.
They must be integrated into a combined supporting force to be effective as others have said. Theyre function best for large scale maneuver warfare in relatively open terrain. But they are insanely resource intensive and the electronic/acoustic/visible signature of an armored brigade is massive. You cant hide where the location is. But fighting an armored brigade is obviously hard to do, and since an armored brigade is mobile, it forces the opponent to react SOMEHOW , even if that means hiding away in a city full of NLAWS. In a strategic toolset, an armored brigade is a sledgehammer. Its big, kinda slow, but its comin for you, and if you dont defend against it somehow, itll smash you to bits.
it is not as easy to hit a tank as it sounds and most of the reports of “tanks” being destroyed are not what people usually think of as a tank. most of them are armored vehicles of lesser types and sorts and even these are terrible weapons on the battlefield. even if your platoon has weapons capable of defeating one, it doesn’t mean you do, and so there is *very* little most soldiers can do against one.
unguided rockets are cheaper than missiles and can get the job done on most vehicles but are difficult to hit with. a heavy armored personnel carrier or a main battle tank might need multiple hits from one of these type weapons depending on how advanced a version. these weapons have no guidance other than manual aiming so the closer a team can get the better, but that makes them vulnerable to return fire, so ambushes are popular.
guided missiles are much more expensive than rpg but also much more capable because the guidance makes them more likely to hit and the greater range makes it more likely the fire team will survive. older versions have manual guidance, which means sometimes the crew gets killed before the missile reaches its target, but newer versions are fire and forget.
it is too early to say for certain, but the russian failures so far look like they have a number of factors. ukraine is putting up much stiffer resistance than expected by russia. low morale among russian soldiers who don’t want to fight ukraine and were told until very recently that they were just on exercises. very poor coordination among russian combat units and an inability to supply the combat units with fuel. none of those things are any commentary on the effectiveness of armor on the modern battlefield.
If combined arms tactics is executed correctly, there should be an infantry element supporting and protecting the Tanks from AT weapons. There is a point where defending against AT weapons is somewhat useless, such as when it has already been fired. Tanks are a very important presence on the battlefield, and can cause devastation to the enemy if used correctly. In Ukraine (I assume you’re asking this question because of this conflict), the Russians are not using any infantry that is close enough to the tank to directly support it. Pair that with an unwillingness to fight, and you have a very bad mixture. Like all things regarding to modern combat, there is a support element for almost anything. Tanks need support, jets need support, airborne troops need air superiority to drop, etc, etc. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
Tanks are great as a mobile artillery clearing entrenched enemy positions – that’s what they were initially designed for in WW1, to clear the enemy out of trenches and then followed closely behind by the infantry to clear out any remaining enemy.
Normally the air units will clear the ground of the big guns, howitzers, other tanks but they’re not very effective at clearing machine gun nests, snipers up in buildings etc – but if you quickly follow up an airstrike with the tanks whilst the enemy is still regrouping, the tanks can quickly neutralise those “smaller” units and then the infantry will mop up and occupy.
Tanks like the M1 Abrams also are equipped with a a “Trophy” system. It recognized incoming threats and neutralizes them. Powerful defense.
Latest Answers