04-10-2022, 02:33 AM
Does the Russian debacle in Ukraine signal the end of the era of tanks & attack helicopters? Militaries have a tendency to fight the last war and are slow to anticipate future needs. Back in the day, the battleship was the terror of the seas, but WW2 put an end to that. It became obvious that they were vulnerable to attack by the air if they didn't have their own air cover, and aircraft carriers became the big dogs of naval combat. Bismark was sunk following attacks by old-style biplanes, while the Tirpitz was sunk by Lancaster bombers while hiding in the fjords of Norway. Then the British learned their lesson when they sent HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to the Indian Ocean despite the aircraft carrier that was supposed to cover for them being delayed after running aground. They were sunk by Japanese planes. Ultimately, naval strategists realised that there wasn't much point assigning aircraft carriers to protect battleships given that the reach and potency of bombers from aircraft carriers was much greater than that of battleships anyway. In their turn, aircraft carriers may now be too vulnerable to missile and submarine attack to be of much practical use in a real war.
Are tanks now the land-based equivalent of battleships: terrifying monsters in days past which are now vulnerable to a bloke carrying an anti-tank missile? And anyone who saw Black Hawk Down understands how vulnerable attack aircraft are to hand-held missile attack. Both of these vulnerabilities have been exploited by the Ukrainians.
This article argues time's up for tanks & APCs: Ukraine has become a graveyard for Russians — and for modern weapons systems, Salon.
On Netflix, there's a 4-part doco Age of Tanks. It summarises its last part Twilight of the tanks in this way: "In a new era of warfare, the once-invincible tank progressively becomes a dangerous, vulnerable and costly liability". It notes that Western powers haven't developed new tanks for the last 25 years because of these concerns. But Russia created an allegedly high-tech tank, the T-14 Armata, in 2014. The Russians claim it has active armor (radar detects incoming missiles and a counter-shot is fired to destroy it) and has stealth characteristics which will make it harder to target. It also has an automated turret while the 3 tank crew are protected by a capsule under the main armour at the front of the hull. You'd think that the Russians would take advantage of the Ukraine War to test out this new tank, but I haven't heard anything that suggests they've been doing so.
It's pretty obvious the Russians have been pretty poor at future-proofing their military. In particular, it's hard for them to abandon prestige weapons such as tanks which have been used to intimidate rebellious populations in their orbit and which won such legendary battles as the Battle of Kursk. I'd hope the US is more agile, but the main problem the US faces is the power of the military-industrial complex. Many in Congress will fight tooth and nail for increased spending on weapon systems manufactured in their State and former military and heads of the DoD are able to find lucrative jobs as lobbyists or with corporations supplying the military.
And then you have idiots like Trump who are in love with potent symbols of military strength such as aircraft carriers when military strategists might prefer smaller, less costly weaponry. Direct political interference can also hamstring military planning. For instance, under Trump the military was banned from taking Climate Change into account in its planning even though the military itself wanted to know whether rising sea levels would inundate some of its sites and whether changes in rain patterns might create new areas of instability etc.
Are tanks now the land-based equivalent of battleships: terrifying monsters in days past which are now vulnerable to a bloke carrying an anti-tank missile? And anyone who saw Black Hawk Down understands how vulnerable attack aircraft are to hand-held missile attack. Both of these vulnerabilities have been exploited by the Ukrainians.
This article argues time's up for tanks & APCs: Ukraine has become a graveyard for Russians — and for modern weapons systems, Salon.
On Netflix, there's a 4-part doco Age of Tanks. It summarises its last part Twilight of the tanks in this way: "In a new era of warfare, the once-invincible tank progressively becomes a dangerous, vulnerable and costly liability". It notes that Western powers haven't developed new tanks for the last 25 years because of these concerns. But Russia created an allegedly high-tech tank, the T-14 Armata, in 2014. The Russians claim it has active armor (radar detects incoming missiles and a counter-shot is fired to destroy it) and has stealth characteristics which will make it harder to target. It also has an automated turret while the 3 tank crew are protected by a capsule under the main armour at the front of the hull. You'd think that the Russians would take advantage of the Ukraine War to test out this new tank, but I haven't heard anything that suggests they've been doing so.
It's pretty obvious the Russians have been pretty poor at future-proofing their military. In particular, it's hard for them to abandon prestige weapons such as tanks which have been used to intimidate rebellious populations in their orbit and which won such legendary battles as the Battle of Kursk. I'd hope the US is more agile, but the main problem the US faces is the power of the military-industrial complex. Many in Congress will fight tooth and nail for increased spending on weapon systems manufactured in their State and former military and heads of the DoD are able to find lucrative jobs as lobbyists or with corporations supplying the military.
And then you have idiots like Trump who are in love with potent symbols of military strength such as aircraft carriers when military strategists might prefer smaller, less costly weaponry. Direct political interference can also hamstring military planning. For instance, under Trump the military was banned from taking Climate Change into account in its planning even though the military itself wanted to know whether rising sea levels would inundate some of its sites and whether changes in rain patterns might create new areas of instability etc.