
On Killing Tanks - smacktoward
https://mwi.usma.edu/on-killing-tanks/
======
KineticLensman
You don't necessarily need to kill tanks, just make them hide. The NATO air
mission against the Serbs [0] in 1999 only destroyed 93 out of 600 Serbian
tanks but had the effect of preventing the Serbs from using them effectively.
This helped level the playing field between the well-trained Serbian army and
the Kosovo Liberation Army.

After the surrender, when the Serbs drove their undamaged tanks home, the
"look how many you missed" attitude missed the point. They were undamaged
because they had effectively suppressed, and hidden in underground car parks,
etc.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)

~~~
Marazan
It did not destroy 93 tanks.

The wiki page you link even spells it out. They air campaign destroyed an
order of magnitude less, maybe even as few as 3 tanks. They hit decoys or fuck
all. Far from levelli g the playing field ethinic cleansing rate increased as
the air campaign was waged.

The Kosovo air campaign was one of the most total an utter failures of recent
times yet people still try and paint it as a success. Unbelievable.

~~~
anovikov
How can it be called a failure? It achieved it's goal: Serbs were on the brink
of defeating Albanians and totally cleansing Kosovo before it started, and
ended with Yugoslav defeat and Kosovar independence (and somewhat indirectly,
Yugoslavia's final dissolution a year later). Without Americans ever needing
to put any boots on the ground, only by air power.

Winning a war isn't about killing your enemies... It's about achieving your
goals. You can't deny they were fully achieved, solely with air power. To me
it sounds like anything but a defeat.

~~~
Marazan
What? Of course America/NATO put boots on the ground. That's the whole point.
NATO ground forces going into Kosovo stopped the Ethnic cleansing.

The air campaign did nothing. Boots on the ground saved lives.

~~~
fit2rule
Russian ground forces stopped the ethnic cleansing.

NATO ground forces showing up, ended the conflict.

------
paganel
I'm obviously not an expert on this but avoiding the killing of tanks also
depends on some sort of air-superiority. I'm saying "some sort" because you
don't need to control the airspace of a whole country in order to defend
against tanks, you just need some "clean" space for your artillery do do its
thing while stationed 20-30 km or more behind the front while being helped by
a few drones.

As recent events in Syria (by "recent" I mean January-February of this year)
have shown drone-guided artillery strikes are almost the perfect deterrent
against tanks or any form of technicals on the ground, to be honest. There
were even videos of Russian strikes hitting two guys on a motorcycle. Don't
see tanks having any chance against that combo (i.e. artillery + drones),
unless helped by air-support. There are countless examples on Twitter, this is
one of them, involving the Turkish Army [1].

[1]
[https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/status/123333691043478323...](https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/status/1233336910434783232)

~~~
jillesvangurp
A lot of wars these days are asymmetric. It's very rare to have fully equipped
armies+navies+airforce on both sides. Usually people do the math upfront and
one side concludes it probably is better to not get destroyed completely.

In most wars in recent history you have one side with lots of relatively high
tech weaponry going against guerrilla forces fighting with relatively
unsophisticated stuff but hiding among civilians, thus making the use of all
that high tech weaponry a bit controversial. E.g. Syria is a good example of
that.

WW II was probably the last conflict where all sides basically removed the
gloves and fought with everything they had where everything on both sides
included some very scary options. I live in what got rebuilt after WW II
destroyed Berlin. There wasn't much left here. Other cities got it worse.

Tanks still have a role because in most conflicts, the other side would lack
the means to defend against them. But they'd be relatively useless against
someone with rockets & an airforce. But they are awesome for dominating a
chaotic battlefield without that. Basically, in the Gulf wars, the US took out
the iraqi airforce in no time and after that basically tanks rolled in pretty
much without opposition. I don't think any US tanks were lost at all. Much of
the conventional troops ended up surrendering.

~~~
zipwitch
> _WW II was probably the last conflict where all sides basically removed the
> gloves and fought with everything they had where everything on both sides
> included some very scary options._

I think that would actually be the Iran-Iraq War:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War)

Tank combat, air combat involving a wide range of aircraft, bombing raids,
ballistic missile strikes, naval combat, trench warfare and chemical weapon
use all took place during the war from 1980 to 1988.

~~~
jillesvangurp
Yes, you are correct; I forgot about how brutal that conflict was.

------
keiferski
The link isn't loading, but: recently I was reading about the Mongol Empire
(started circa ±1200) and how their military tactics were extremely innovative
for the time, specifically for their method of operating as separate,
independent units across vast distances. Apparently, this method of warfare
was ignored for hundreds of years and only came into use again when mechanized
transports (like tanks) became widely adopted. The Soviets developed this into
"Deep Battle" which was extensively used on the Eastern Front during WW2.

 _Deep Battle doctrine bore a heavy resemblance to Mongol strategic methods,
substituting tanks, motorized troop carriers, artillery, and airplanes for
Mongol horse archers, lancers, and field artillery. The Red Army even went so
far as to copy Subutai 's use of smokescreens on the battlefield to cover
troop movements._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai#Legacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai#Legacy)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation)

~~~
lqet
Also:

> Though unknown to the west for many centuries, Subutai's exploits were first
> featured by the British military theorist B. H. Liddell Hart in his book
> Great Captains Unveiled after World War I. Liddell Hart used the example of
> the Mongols under Genghis and Subutai to demonstrate how a new mechanized
> army could ideally fight using the principles of mobility, dispersion,
> surprise, and indirect means. Though he gained little support in Britain,
> Liddell Hart's books were read in Germany, whose armies during the initial
> 1940–41 invasions of France and Russia bore an astonishing similarity to the
> campaigns of Subutai, 700 years earlier. In particular, Erwin Rommel and
> George Patton were avid students of Mongol campaigns

~~~
rjsw
Not sure that the statement about him getting little support in Britain is
correct. The British Army was fully mechanized in 1939, even infantry
regiments had plenty of Universal Carriers [1] to help move supplies around.
The German Army was still using horses in 1945.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier)

~~~
blaser-waffle
Everyone was using horses in 1945. Only the US, who got into the war late, and
who had a massive industrial base, showed up heavily motorized.

The Brits ended up motorized mostly because of 1) the US supplying them, and
2) they left many of their horses on the continent when they pulled back from
Dunkirk. The US sent tons of jeeps to the USSR too.

~~~
rjsw
The British Army wasn't using horses in 1940 so didn't leave them at Dunkirk.

------
Avalaxy
Are tanks the new battleship? It seems to me that the heavily armored, heavily
armed, slow vehicles are no longer a match for the fast-paced and dynamic
modern warfare. They are sitting ducks for attack helicopters, jets and well-
coordinated infantry teams.

Interesting read by the way. It's crazy to see what sort of smart inventions
are created in this arms race between David and Goliath.

~~~
keanzu
A M1A2 main battle tank can travel at 40mph or 30mph offroad. If you know
where one is and then lose track it can be 600 miles away from where you
thought it was within 24 hours. If you saw the tank in Paris it could show up
as far away as Prague or Madrid the next day.

They aren't that slow.

~~~
gherkinnn
1000km (600m) is a long way to go in a metal box. And you’d need to carry
fuel, spare parts, and ammo. Tanks are vulnerable without infantry, so better
have them there too. Tracks are very inefficient (and can tear up roads), so
it’s better to load them on to trains or lorries.

It’s not just a tank. It’s all the logistics that go in to supporting one.

~~~
arethuza
One of SOE's achievements around D-Day was introducing abrasive materials into
the axle bearings of the trank transporters for the SS Das Reich division -
they were stationed in the south of France and had to try to make their own
way there rather than using transporters - which fortunately didn't go well.

An entire division of experienced and well equipped troops pretty much
neutralised with some gritty powder in the right places....

------
JohnBooty
Am I the only one that is absolutely disgusted by violence, yet absolutely
loves reading articles such as this?

~~~
munificent
I'm so with you. I hate the function these are designed for, but it's so
satisfying seeing such deeply- _functional_ engineering. Like some kind of
weird problem-solving porn.

------
bendbro
If you get excited by this topic, I suggest you give War Thunder a try.

The game has horrible UX, but:

1\. The game does the best (?) job I've seen of any game at simulating a wide
variety of historical vehicles, shells, and armor.

2\. The game has a low barrier to entry: no fast twitch reactions, and slow
gameplay.

3\. It has a fairly fun meta to improve within.

4\. The community loosely associated around it can be both fun and
informative: PhlyDaily, The Chieftain's Hatch, RedEffect, Potential History,
and Lindybeige

------
willvarfar
Its easy to imagine smarter missiles that have multiple independent warheads
and contain jammers and attempt to fly around to approach from vulnerable
angles etc.

Its also easier to imagine infantry falling back on indirect fire, where they
identify targets for artillery and aircraft.

RPGs etc made cheaply-equipped soldiers able to take on expensive tanks. But
now extremely expensive tanks are becoming immune to them, and the next step
for soldiers is also expensive.

~~~
C1sc0cat
In ww2 the tactical doctrine for German troops was to engage with three
PanzerFaust teams two missiles would be fired initially with the most
experienced team held back.

~~~
arethuza
I recently read an _excellent_ account of what things were like as a British
tank commander in 1994 & 1945 from Normandy onwards - "grim" doesn't do it
justice. Imagine as a 19 year old commander of 4 tank platoon being told that
your life expectancy was two weeks!

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30145506-tank-
action](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30145506-tank-action)

~~~
C1sc0cat
I suspect that the experience of the opposing forces where much worse if you
read German soldiers experiences of facing D day

~~~
jacobush
The fighting in Berling was teenagers, sometimes preteens wielding the Faust.
They called it _" panzerknacken"_ i.e. "armour knocking" or "armour smashing".

------
bobloblaw45
How about fooling the APS into firing at duds until its munitions are depleted
and then shooting a rocket? Like a series of high caliber, slower moving
projectiles made out of something super radar reflective at reflective angles?

~~~
vkou
While you're standing around, firing blanks at the tank, how do you expect the
tank will react to you?

It will, ah, be highly incentivised to shoot back. And it won't be shooting at
you with blanks.

Pretty much all the tactics listed in TFA seem to be desperation moves.

------
sho
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200323100053/https://mwi.usma....](https://web.archive.org/web/20200323100053/https://mwi.usma.edu/on-
killing-tanks/)

And some amazing videos of the Trophy APS system mentioned in the article
doing their thing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aA9HsmLHBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aA9HsmLHBQ)

~~~
2rsf
Trophy is amazing, but it has it's limitations. It limits friendly infantry
from getting close, and still get saturated and in need of recharge.

------
nojvek
War is nasty, although the rate of invention during world war was impressive.
Rocket technology really improved as everyone was trying to figure out how to
make better missiles. Same with jet engines and submarines. Computation,
Cryptography also got major upgrades.

When things get scarce, the only natural solution is to fight it out. Natural
selection is very mean and nasty.

------
baybal2
Tanks are by definition not a defensive weapon. If they are not advancing onto
an enemy strongpoint during war, they are being wasted.

USSR had a plan to move 20000 tanks and 80000 units of support armour into
Europe all at once with a very idea that no low intensity aerial, mine warfare
or guerrilla anti-tank campaign can stop it all before all airfields and
commando bases are overwhelmed.

~~~
C1sc0cat
A one way trip - there was no planed way of retreating from that what I recall

~~~
baybal2
Yes, that was the plan.

To force nato into the most costly trades possible, early on.

They wanted to force nato to field their heaviest military assets to the
frontlines at the time when nuclear rockets will be flying left and right.

And they would attack over very wide fronts for the first few days, before
they concentrate their forces, thus concealing their breakthrough trajectory
until the most costly trades are done.

------
sa46
I served in a light-infantry battalion, specifically in our heavy-weapons
company. Most of the doctrine is available publicly. For a heavy weapons
company, see Appendix D of
[https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6672...](https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6672_ATP%203-21x20%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf)

Going against tanks as an infantry unit is a tough spot. Tanks are
significantly faster, more lethal, and harder to kill than any light-infantry
unit. In a defense, light infantry uses engagement area development to attempt
to even the odds. Engagement area development is similar to building a defense
in depth. A quick summary:

0\. Analyze the enemy composition and disposition to determine likely avenues
of approach. After that, build your engagement areas on those approaches.

1\. When the enemy is far away, attempt to disrupt or turn their movement into
the engagement area. This is typically a combination of scouts, artillery, or
obstacles to channel the enemy into the engagement area.

2\. Once the enemy is in the engagement area, keep them there (fix) as long as
possible. Use priority targets and sectors of fire to efficiently concentrate
fires on the most valuable targets which almost certainly includes tanks.

3\. Finally, you block the enemy with obstacles to move to secondary
positions.

The author's first tactic of a trial shot of engaging at range is part of step
1. The goal is to force the enemy to change their movement, slow them down, or
disable the active protection measures. This is a bit more difficult with a
TOW missile than with a Javelin. Modern tanks will auto-rotate if you laser
range find them directly. Since a tank round travels significantly faster than
a TOW missile, a tank can kill you before the TOW missile reaches them. Since
a TOW is guided by an operator via a wire, the missle with then miss.

The second tactic of multiple missiles would go in step 2. To avoid firing
excessive missiles at targets, one technique is to "shard" the engagement area
so subordinate units are responsible for parts of it.

The third tactic of using grenade launchers and mortars is questionable. We
were taught that tanks are basically invulnerable to indirect fire (mortars
and artillery). I don't think a 60mm mortar would have any significant effect
on a tank unless you score a direct hit. The precision on indirect fire isn't
good enough to directly hit a tank. Hoping to trigger the tank's active
defense measure is a long shot. Also, if you're using a M320 grenade launcher
with a max effective range of 320m against a tank, you're going to die soon
unless you have some other significant advantage like urban terrain. The MK19
automatic grenade launcher is a much better weapon for trying to prematurely
damage the tank's defense with a range of 1500m.

~~~
burfog
I think the idea was that lots of indirect fire would degrade the sensors.
It's really hard to armor a sensor. Lenses chip and scratch.

------
jeffrallen
War is stupid.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? We're
trying for a different sort of forum.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
whatever1
sure let’s talk about how important military spending is while the global
economy has come to a halt because of a virus and the advanced nations are
crying for help.

~~~
sslayer
Yeah, but can we quarantine war? People are dying out there, and we can't even
get to people to stop going out to the bars! And you want to stop wars?

~~~
whatever1
What does spending on military $600B/y get you? Capability of winning wars?
America has not won a war since WW2. National security? Think about 9/11\.
Geopolitical influence? See the middle east mess. Economic wealth? Well if you
invested a trillion per year in any sector of the economy you would have
spurred economic activity of similar magnitude with the defense sector, that
could actually have some benefits for the society, e.g. proper healthcare.

