My point is optimizing for defending only against drones makes armor extremely vulnerable, massive targets for direct fire weapons and artillery (artillery vulnerability being from reduced mobility and situational awareness).
Yes, the Russian versions strand themselves pretty often, which is why they’ve tried to make this one pretty transparent. Since it’s only slightly larger than the tank already is, I doubt it makes a difference in terms of detection, though.
Time will tell if it’s a gamechanger or just a reasonable enough strategy both sides keep trying it.
It seems like a decent optimization for an environment where drones are the primary threat but these circumstances were artificially engineered in the Ukraine war from Ukraine being severely underequipped with artillery reserves and traditional AT such as javelins.
Hmm, are the Russians also having problems in that department? This is a Ukrainian tank per the title.
That said, it’s a reasonable general take. Every time there’s a new weapon this debate plays out. Sometimes it’s the atom bomb and lives up to the hype, but sometimes it’s the interwar bomber that doesn’t always get through.
Yes, Russia has had to heavily rely on North Korean artillery ammunition supply and that reserve stock has run out. It was poor quality to begin with as well.
The real problem for Russia though is they can’t protect their artillery from being hunted down by Ukraine so they can’t deploy it in as forward threatening positions on assault and thus for Ukraine fiber optic drones, glidebombs and mines are far more of a realistic threat to armor.
Russian artillery is magnificently imprecise. In order to hit a specific target using Soviet-style artillery, you need about 10 times as many rounds as with western artillery.
When the goal is to obliterate a town, that doesn’t matter. But when you’re trying to hit a single tank, it does.
It’s more doctrine than actual machine accuracy. They plan to hit a large area as their primary technique of inflicting damage, while a NATO force waits for some kind of known target or goal (like “make this route unusable”).
It’s a doctrine dictated by machine accuracy.
There was a lot of text about the accuracy of Soviet-style artillery back in 2022 when Ukraine migrated to the western 155 mm ammunition and, at the same time, to western-made artillery.
Perfect target practice for one of these.
Sure. Except it itself is vulnerable to artillery fire, costs a lot, and would itself need drone-proofing.
This is just how armour fighting armour works.
My point is optimizing for defending only against drones makes armor extremely vulnerable, massive targets for direct fire weapons and artillery (artillery vulnerability being from reduced mobility and situational awareness).
Yes, the Russian versions strand themselves pretty often, which is why they’ve tried to make this one pretty transparent. Since it’s only slightly larger than the tank already is, I doubt it makes a difference in terms of detection, though.
Time will tell if it’s a gamechanger or just a reasonable enough strategy both sides keep trying it.
It seems like a decent optimization for an environment where drones are the primary threat but these circumstances were artificially engineered in the Ukraine war from Ukraine being severely underequipped with artillery reserves and traditional AT such as javelins.
Hmm, are the Russians also having problems in that department? This is a Ukrainian tank per the title.
That said, it’s a reasonable general take. Every time there’s a new weapon this debate plays out. Sometimes it’s the atom bomb and lives up to the hype, but sometimes it’s the interwar bomber that doesn’t always get through.
Yes, Russia has had to heavily rely on North Korean artillery ammunition supply and that reserve stock has run out. It was poor quality to begin with as well.
The real problem for Russia though is they can’t protect their artillery from being hunted down by Ukraine so they can’t deploy it in as forward threatening positions on assault and thus for Ukraine fiber optic drones, glidebombs and mines are far more of a realistic threat to armor.
@CanadaPlus @supersquirrel
Russian artillery is magnificently imprecise. In order to hit a specific target using Soviet-style artillery, you need about 10 times as many rounds as with western artillery.
When the goal is to obliterate a town, that doesn’t matter. But when you’re trying to hit a single tank, it does.
It’s more doctrine than actual machine accuracy. They plan to hit a large area as their primary technique of inflicting damage, while a NATO force waits for some kind of known target or goal (like “make this route unusable”).
@CanadaPlus
It’s a doctrine dictated by machine accuracy.
There was a lot of text about the accuracy of Soviet-style artillery back in 2022 when Ukraine migrated to the western 155 mm ammunition and, at the same time, to western-made artillery.