What critique of tanks on the modern battlefield doesn't also apply to any other armored vehicle? The same weaknesses and weapons apply to all of them, and the payloads, troop carrier, big gun, etc, can also be supplied by other means if that works out. So I can't see why distinguishing tanks, AFVs, and IFVs helps this discussion...
Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.
Most AFV have some kind of integral infantry support (literally in the back) while a tank needs to be battle-teamed to do that. Battle-teaming is hard to do because inevitably the two vehicles don’t quite match capability.
I didn't say tanks only did anti-tank - I said they also do shock action. It's the only reason they exist in that it's the only thing that they are needed for that you couldn't do with another AFV.
> defeated by these basic WW2 obstacles, and currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons. The best chance of active protection systems from here rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up.
does not apply equally well to AFVs? If the answer is "none", why are you talking about AFVs as if they're going to survive longer than tanks? Other vehicles than AFVs can be build to carry troops into battle, if it turns out armor is a bad tradeoff, just as surely as other machines could be designed to provide direct fire support. But a bunch of infantry in a can is always going to be a great target for a Javelin, right?
So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed?
The reason the Russians are getting sandbagged is because they aren't doing combined arms; In some areas they have tanks, and infantry, but no artillery coordination. Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams, but you have to have the barrels, the field observers to aim it, all in coordination with the tanks and infantry (so you don't smack them). In other areas they have tons of infantry and artillery, but no tanks so they can't really advance.
Russia's BTG design isn't really around tanks, but instead AFVs. They use tanks as fire support for infantry, but the average battalion only started the war with around 10 tanks (vs 40 IFV). Of course some units were understrength, (and now much worse).
This makes the BTG very brittle when opposing forces have matching tanks and good ATGMs. Combine this with poorly trained infantry, and all those IFVs are just wasted.
> So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed?
Like what do you think they should do? Walk everywhere?
> Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams
I don't think so. These teams are tiny and dispersed. How would you find them, and how would you fix them, in order to bring on guns? Ability to FFS these teams is a major issue (also not solved well by tanks!)
I'm just pointing out that IFVs have the exact same vulnerabilities as tanks, but no one seems to be saying get rid of them. Both are better than being WW1 foot soldiers.
Countering ATGM teams (whether crewed vehicles or dismounts) relies on scouting (both recon and UAV) to find them. That is hard. Often times you'll stumble into a cauldron where your advance turns into a reconnaissance by fire. Then you fix with artillery, and finally have your infantry kill them. This is hard when fighting a well-trained and well equipped opponent. But the Russians aren't even trying.
It's not like the Ukrainians have great gear. These are guys driving around in technicals and ATVs, lightly protected, and using ATGMs to great effect. They're not winning because they have great ATGMs, they're winning because they have the battlefield intelligence to be able to operate quickly and with less protection.
In areas where they have had less success (Kherson mostly until now) they've had trouble with scouting, and the Russians have been more fortified. As those defensive lines break down and they lose their LOCs, they become easier to exploit.
But if you go back to the start of the thread I didn't say that and I'm not sure anyone else did either! I said 'interested to see where they go next'!
> It's not like the Ukrainians have great gear.
They do have Western MRAPP for example (saw a photo of an Ridgeback surviving a Russian ambush.)
It's comparing like for like. You think tanks are obsolete for reasons XYZ, that all apply to all AFVs.
Yes, the West has been slowly supplying vehicles[1], but most of the St. Javelin success was early during the assault on Kiev where TDF units crushed the Russian spearhead, riding in ATVs, trucks, whatever they could find. Since then they've been getting handmedowns from the West, which is glad to be rid of their MRAPPs due to high operating costs.
[1] The West has been terrible in general about supplying AFVs to Ukraine. Other than old M113 and ancient Soviet gear, they seem hesitant to supply anything remotely modern. Germany has even balked at supplying Leo 1s that have been outdated since the late 60's/early 70's.
Whoah there. That's not what I said. I don't think I've used that word once. I said I was interested in seeing where they go next.
The UK sent Ridgeback MRAPP, and Ukraine seem happy, based on Tweets, with the protection they're giving in practice. Yes they were sent as they were being withdrawn anyway due to restructuring, but they were only about ten years old!
Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.