Posted on 10/18/2020 12:19:48 PM PDT by RomanSoldier19
In eastern Ladakh, India and China have deployed a considerable number of tanks in the standoff at the LAC. The heavy T-72 and T-90 tanks of India are facing the Type 15 light Chinese tanks. Both sides claim superiority. These points of view miss the larger picture, that the main threat to a tank today is not from another tank, but from the air. This is particularly true in the open, barren LAC.
The fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan has occupied little attention in the Indian media, but it is proving to be of great interest to the military community. As the war erupted over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, both sides put out video footage showing tanks being destroyed by drones and precision artillery strikes.
The Azerbaijan military has deployed an array of drones, both for surveillance and attack. The latter, also known as ‘kamikaze’ drones, loiter over the battlefield, acquire targets like tanks and crash into them. On display were both Israeli and Turkish drones that have been obtained in large numbers by Baku over the past few years.
Both sides have claimed that hundreds of tanks, along with air defence launchers, artillery guns and other military equipment have been destroyed in the fighting. While it is difficult to assess the losses accurately, there is no doubt that drones have played a large role. The Armenian defence ministry statement that it has shot down 107 enemy drones indicates the extensive use of drones in the fighting.
Azerbaijani loitering munition strike on Armenian S-300 36D6
Link strike on Armenian S-300 36D6
Link Armenia Tank - Loiter Muntion Destruction Link
Suicide Drones, Kamakazi Drones & Loitering Munitions - New War in Nagorno-Karabakh - News Today
(Excerpt) Read more at tribuneindia.com ...
Countries are still arming themselves for another WWII. It’s not going to happen, except maybe in smaller proxy wars. Even then, as this article says, newer weapons will make tanks obsolete. If there is a major war between nuclear powers, then all bets are off.
The Transformation of War by Martin van Creveld
writings on 4th generation warfare by William Lind
How come one side isn’t putting out air superiority drones to take out the other side’s tank-killer suicide drones? For that matter, why is either side using tanks instead of surface-mobile artillery drones?
How about drone tanks shooting down drone aircraft and/or frying their electronics?
Not all countries.
I have read about American weapons that I could barely understand.
Frying drones from incredible distances.
Using drones from half way across the world on a computer.
Missiles getting hypersonic.
Lasers.
The smaller countries..yes, still conventional..but even that is changing with the cheap price of drones.
China talks tough. And they have swarms of drones yada yada.
They will never know what hit them if they tangle with the US at sea.
Tanks are already obsolete.
Those little missiles are expensive ! at least 40,000 and 50,000 a pop in and sometimes upwards of $ 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 for a cruise type
[Countries are still arming themselves for another WWII. It’s not going to happen, except maybe in smaller proxy wars. Even then, as this article says, newer weapons will make tanks obsolete. ]
| Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combat Aircraft | ||||||
| MiG-21 | Soviet Union | fighter | H/J | 51[70] | twelve MiG-21F's from Poland [71] | |
| MiG-23 | Soviet Union | fighter-bomber | BN/MLD | 87[70] | ||
| MiG-25 | Soviet Union | interceptor | R | 2[70] | ||
| MiG-29 | Soviet Union | multirole | SMT/M | 19+10[70][72][73] | ||
| Sukhoi Su-22 | Soviet Union | fighter / bomber | M4 | 39[70] | ||
| Sukhoi Su-24 | Soviet Union | fighter / bomber | M2 | 16[70][74] | ||
| Transport | ||||||
| Antonov An-26 | Soviet Union | transport | 3[70] | |||
| Ilyushin Il-76 | Soviet Union | heavy transport | 5[75] | |||
| Helicopters | ||||||
| Mil Mi-2 | Soviet Union | utility | 13[70] | |||
| Mil Mi-17 | Soviet Union | utility | Mi-8/17 | 50[70] | ||
| Mil Mi-14 | Soviet Union | ASW / SAR | 11[70] | |||
| Mil Mi-24 | Soviet Union | attack | Mi-25 | 27[70] | ||
| Kamov Ka-27 | Soviet Union | ASW / utility | Ka-28 | 2[70] | ||
| Aérospatiale Gazelle | France | utility / scout | SA342 | 62[70] | ||
| Trainer Aircraft | ||||||
| Aero L-39 | Czechoslovakia | jet trainer | 60[70][76][note 1] | |||
| MFI-17 Mushshak | Pakistan | trainer | 6[70] | |||
| Aircraft | Origin | Type | Version | In service | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combat aircraft | ||||||
| Sukhoi Su-30 | Russia | Multirole | Su-30SM | 4[32] | 8 more are on order | |
| Sukhoi Su-25 | Russia | Attack | Su-25K | 13[33] | All to be modernized to the Su-25SM3 variant[33] | |
| Transport | ||||||
| Ilyushin Il-76 | Russia | Heavy transport | 3[34] | |||
| Helicopters | ||||||
| Mil Mi-8 | Russia | Utility | Mi-8/17/171 | 12[34] | ||
| Mil Mi-24 | Russia | Attack | Mi-24/35 | 15[34] | ||
| Trainer aircraft | ||||||
| Aero L-39 | Czechoslovakia | Jet trainer | 6[34] | |||
| Mil Mi-2 | Poland | Trainer / utility | 6[34] | |||
| Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combat aircraft | ||||||
| MiG-29 | Russia | multirole | 12[30] | |||
| Sukhoi Su-25 | Russia | attack | 12[30] | |||
| Transport | ||||||
| Ilyushin Il-76 | Russia | transport | 1[30] | |||
| Helicopters | ||||||
| Bell 412 | United States | utility | 2[30] | |||
| Mil Mi-17 | Russia | utility / transport | 65[30] | |||
| Mil Mi-24 | Russia | attack | Mi-35 | 17[30] | ||
| Kamov Ka-27 | Russia | utility | Ka-32 | 4[30] | ||
| Trainer aircraft | ||||||
| Aero L-39 | Czech Republic | jet trainer | 12[30] | |||
| PZL Mi-2 | Poland | rotorcraft trainer | 7[30] | |||
| PAC Super Mushshak | Pakistan | trainer | 10[30] | |||
| UAV | ||||||
| Antonov An-2 | Soviet Union/Poland/Azerbaijan | Unmanned kamikaze aircraft | 60 | [31] | ||
| Bayraktar TB2 | Turkey | Attack | [32] | |||
| Hermes 450 | Israel | surveillance | 12[33] | two are Hermes 900[33] | ||
| IAI Heron | Israel | surveillance | 5[33] | |||
| IAI Searcher | Israel | surveillance | 5[33] | |||
| Orbiter | Israel | surveillance | 10[34][33] | produced in Azerbaijan | ||
| Aerostar | Israel | surveillance | 14[33] | produced in Azerbaijan[34] | ||
Oh and since Sept 23 6,000 Azerbaijans have been killed
“Those little missiles are expensive ! at least 40,000 and 50,000 a pop in and sometimes upwards of $ 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 for a cruise type”
War is a game of economics. If you spend a million to knock out something the enemy can’t replace and is worth 10 million, then (assuming equal economic combatants) it was a good deal.
“How come one side isn’t putting out air superiority drones to take out the other side’s tank-killer suicide drones? For that matter, why is either side using tanks instead of surface-mobile artillery drones?”
I have heavily researched the answers to those questions. The idea of an air superiority drone is doable, but the resulting device would be relatively cheap. This is not to say the problem is trivial or easy. It’s not to say it would be cheap to develop. But, the resulting drone would be small and relatively cheap to build. Nobody wants that. I was in the industrial side of the military industrial complex for 33 years. Companies want to build expensive, complex and difficult to maintain equipment. That’s because profit is a percentage of costs. I once told a program manager that the device about to pass its qual test was trending to failure and would return within weeks. He grinned and said, “We’ll make money when we fix it.”
On the military side, nobody wants to be the project manager or driving force behind a small, cheap project. That’s not where reputations and promotions are made. It’s also not how you negotiate for a no-show job after you leave the military.
As for smaller, unmanned tanks. I attended a high-level meeting at GD and the Army regarding new designs. We were just about to get some Future Combat Systems business. But the sales VP was focused on Stryker and Abrams. In a discussion over coffee before the main affair, an officer (a colonel, if I recall) said to the VP, “What we really want is something between, say, eight to 12 tons.” The VP laughed and replied, “No you don’t. You want a Stryker.” (About 16 tons if recall.) The VP was having a good laugh and failed completely to read the colonel’s expression. If looks could have killed, the VP would have burst into flames.
GD Land Systems ended up losing half it’s work force when the Army decided to buy the tanks built by three competitors on a six-ton truck chassis. While I am sure the VP made out quite well, the rest of us got laid off because GD was refusing to even entertain the Army’s needs.
Indeed, the main battle tank’s days are numbered. Not because it is particularly vulnerable in itself. But the logistics, the tankers in long rows behind it, can be taken out by tiny, cheap, and disposable drones. A tank with no gas is a radio and a fixed gun. Not very useful if you can’t move them where you need them.
What if it’s raining or fog or high wind?Tanks will always have a place on the battlefield.
so, where does the tank hide if there is no bad weather? Under a bridge? Nope.
Like the Iraqi’s you have to resort to burying them in the sand.
But nations like US or RUS or a number of others can “see” metallic buried objects....
For 1st and 2nd world conflicts, tanks are dead.
Spam in a can?
Thank you for your detailed reply - my question was half-facetious; your answer was both informative and sobering.
“ Against a country with a real air force, they’re targets.”
Not if you launch a few hundred at once.
In the regular national U.S. press, I read of bases in the U.S. in non-descript cities where the airmen fly drones on the other side of the world. Some drones are armed with hellfire missiles. They smoke the local jihadi boss in the desert, and go home for dinner and dessert with the wife and kids.
That’s just incredible :)
Does that count as combat? :) It should, I guess.
But if you fall and hurt your leg in the office, no hazard pay :)
Anything that puts our men at less risk, I am Very Much for.
Trump praised the strength of our military so much the other day.
He said after 3 plus years of him in office, we have the best military we have ever had.
I pray and believe he’s right.
We have ALWAYS had brave men.
But under bill and barrack, we didn’t have the best equipment or enough of the best equipment.
The tank will become an armored, mobile power generator.
The US built a nuclear powered tank decades ago.
Drones are great, but how long can they loiter?
You can spoof all you want and go really fast, but there is no cover in the air.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.