Synopsis: Australia says it has delivered the final tranche of 49 retired M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine as part of a broader $1.5 billion support package. -The tanks arrive with spares and support gear and are described as modified for Ukrainian requirements, including diesel fuel compatibility and upgraded thermal sights and electronics. -On the battlefield, […]
For the one thousandth time,Main Battle Tanks are as far from obsolete as you possibly can get.
While advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) like the Javelin remain highly effective, the FPV drone has emerged as the primary and most frequently used anti-tank weapon of the war, largely due to its cost and availability. FPV operators have become adept tank hunters, exploiting the vulnerabilities of even the most modern main battle tanks. Tactics often involve targeting specific weak points such as the optics, the turret ring, the engine compartment, or the tracks.
A single FPV strike, especially with a standard RPG warhead, may not always result in a “catastrophic kill” that destroys the tank outright. However, it is often sufficient to achieve a “mobility kill” by damaging the tracks or engine, leaving the heavily armoured vehicle stranded and vulnerable. Once a tank is disabled, it can be systematically destroyed by subsequent FPV strikes or targeted by other assets like artillery or grenade-dropping drones that can precisely drop munitions into open hatches. Analysis of combat footage suggests that destroying a tank can sometimes require ten or more FPV drones, but given their low cost, this is still a highly favourable exchange. The effectiveness rate varies widely based on operator skill, target defences, and electronic warfare conditions, with estimates for successful strikes against armoured vehicles ranging from as low as 5% to as high as 50% for elite units. Regardless of the precise percentage, the sheer volume of attacks has made FPVs the leading cause of armoured vehicle losses for both sides"
further down:
"The Attrition Engine and the Death of Manoeuvre
The most significant strategic impact of the FPV drone, in concert with other ISR assets, has been the creation of a hyper-lethal and transparent battlespace that has effectively killed large-scale manoeuvre warfare. The constant threat of detection and precision strike from above makes the concentration of forces, the very foundation of a combined arms breakthrough, prohibitively costly and risky. As a result, both Russian and Ukrainian armies have been deprived of their tactical and operational mobility, forcing combat to devolve into a grinding, positional war of attrition reminiscent of World War I, but with 21st-century technology."
It’s RIGHT THERE: CONCENTRATION-OF-FORCE isn’t the way it’s done, now.
My point is that concentration-of-force ITSELF isn’t happening, anymore, because drones have made that suicidal.
& when concentration-of-force isn’t happening, anymore, then … weapons which multiply 1 side’s advantage in concentration-of-force … are irrelevant.
Tanks are strong weapons.
But … why am I getting deja-vu about this… what similar-thing happened back in WW1 or WW2…
here’s 1, but of a different context, entirely:
Vietnam: ditch the 7.62 NATO round in favor of the 5.56, which IN JUNGLE is more-useful.
OK, so what happens when the army gets deployed in Iraq, in open desert, & there’s no jungle?
then one gets killed, helplessly, by the farther-reaching rounds being used by the enemy.
THE CONTEXT CHANGED, see?
.: the technological-appropriateness changed, too!
https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/fpv-drones-ukraine-war-analysis/
"The Primary Anti-Tank Weapon
While advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) like the Javelin remain highly effective, the FPV drone has emerged as the primary and most frequently used anti-tank weapon of the war, largely due to its cost and availability. FPV operators have become adept tank hunters, exploiting the vulnerabilities of even the most modern main battle tanks. Tactics often involve targeting specific weak points such as the optics, the turret ring, the engine compartment, or the tracks.
A single FPV strike, especially with a standard RPG warhead, may not always result in a “catastrophic kill” that destroys the tank outright. However, it is often sufficient to achieve a “mobility kill” by damaging the tracks or engine, leaving the heavily armoured vehicle stranded and vulnerable. Once a tank is disabled, it can be systematically destroyed by subsequent FPV strikes or targeted by other assets like artillery or grenade-dropping drones that can precisely drop munitions into open hatches. Analysis of combat footage suggests that destroying a tank can sometimes require ten or more FPV drones, but given their low cost, this is still a highly favourable exchange. The effectiveness rate varies widely based on operator skill, target defences, and electronic warfare conditions, with estimates for successful strikes against armoured vehicles ranging from as low as 5% to as high as 50% for elite units. Regardless of the precise percentage, the sheer volume of attacks has made FPVs the leading cause of armoured vehicle losses for both sides"
further down:
"The Attrition Engine and the Death of Manoeuvre
The most significant strategic impact of the FPV drone, in concert with other ISR assets, has been the creation of a hyper-lethal and transparent battlespace that has effectively killed large-scale manoeuvre warfare. The constant threat of detection and precision strike from above makes the concentration of forces, the very foundation of a combined arms breakthrough, prohibitively costly and risky. As a result, both Russian and Ukrainian armies have been deprived of their tactical and operational mobility, forcing combat to devolve into a grinding, positional war of attrition reminiscent of World War I, but with 21st-century technology."
It’s RIGHT THERE: CONCENTRATION-OF-FORCE isn’t the way it’s done, now.
_ /\ _