Javelin vs. T-72

[sPzAbt653]

I'm not knowledgeable in Combat Results Calculations, but if I am guessing correctly the highlighted factors are the ones that are being compared in this type of Combat. It looks like the T-72 doesn't have much of a chance.

[sPzAbt653]

We will have these two units attacking each other. The Javelins are not included in a Squad, they are separate. Some other AT systems in this database are included in Squads. So for this test [20] Javelins are given to the Rifle Squads.

[sPzAbt653]

The results of one Round of Ukraine unit attacking Russia unit. Ukraine unit also went into reorg.

[sPzAbt653]

These are the results of one Round of Russia unit attacking Ukraine unit. The T-72's are all gone.

The results indicate to me that the Attrition Divider needs to be adjusted. This makes sense as the setting for this test is the default setting of ten, which is generally used for one week turns. This scenario has one day turns. Therefore, we got a weeks worth of fighting in one day. Otherwise, it seems that the results are as expected.

I should check Javelin vs. T-80 before resetting the AD.

[sPzAbt653]

T-80's didn't fare any better at AD = 10.

AD = 35 TEST:
Adjusting the AD from 10 to 35 resulted in expectedly lower losses. For these two rounds the losses were 5 Squads to 10 T-72's. That sounds reasonable for a Limited Losses 4 hour firefight, I think?

[sPzAbt653]

With the technological advances in Man Portable AT and AA weapons, and UAV's/Drone's, are expensive Tanks and Jets useful anymore?

[Zovs]

With the technological advances in Man Portable AT and AA weapons, and UAV's/Drone's, are expensive Tanks and Jets useful anymore?

Yes please see this expert:

https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8

[golden delicious]

With the technological advances in Man Portable AT and AA weapons, and UAV's/Drone's, are expensive Tanks and Jets useful anymore?

The key word here for me is "expensive"

Note that the US Army declined to put the M6 Heavy Tank into production because it was cheaper, easier and more effective to ship two M4s across the Atlantic than one M6.

I suspect that now everyone is pretty much mucking about with latter-day M6s because of an extreme aversion to personnel losses (at least in the west) and the relatively small number of tanks in production; even at the peak of the Cold War the Soviet Union was only producing a few thousand tanks a year. If we ever get to fighting a conventional war on a larger scale than we're seeing today that won't be enough: it'll be time to switch back to the cheap stuff which can be churned out in their tens of thousands.

[sPzAbt653]

With the technological advances in Man Portable AT and AA weapons, and UAV's/Drone's, are expensive Tanks and Jets useful anymore?

Yes please see this expert:

https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8

Thanks for the link. I've seen that guy, he's been around a bit and he knows some stuff. He has a series of technical tank videos that are nice to watch. But I have a bit of a rule about not wasting time watching YouTuber's [a lot of them have nothing to say, they just like to make videos to feel important]. So for a 30 minute video I'll give the speaker 5 minutes to say something, and if they don't I'll bail on it. For this video, he spends the first 5 minutes saying absolutely nothing about why tanks are useful in the current times. He also does one of my favorite complaints about talkers in that he makes analogies that are useless. Anybody can make up analogies that they impress themselves with. For example, he says that modern systems have not made tanks obsolete because modern systems have not made infantry obsolete.

For my dime of time that I have to spend on the internet, this one is not worth it. If anyone watched the entire video and knows that he eventually does make any valid point[s], please post then or point to the corresponding Time Stamp.

[sPzAbt653]

Note that the US Army declined to put the M6 Heavy Tank into production because it was cheaper, easier and more effective to ship two M4s across the Atlantic than one M6.

I did read an entertaining article about how much would need to be changed/upgraded in the Transportation and Supply Systems in order to accommodate the heavier tanks, if put into production. It's easy for me, a lifelong United Statian, to take for granted that we can do anything by snapping our fingers. But I have to think about what needs to be done to add 20 tons more capacity to trains, ships, roads, bridges, ammo carriers, and whatever else I forgot. So yeah, I'd love to have a USA Heavy Tank to play with, but who wants to get 400 of them over to Europe and support them there?

USA's Heavy Tank T29 in 1944, with a 105mm Gun:

[sPzAbt653]

If we ever get to fighting a conventional war on a larger scale than we're seeing today that won't be enough: it'll be time to switch back to the cheap stuff which can be churned out in their tens of thousands.

It's terrible to say, but I'm fascinated to see how the War in Ukraine develops. I am of course totally disgusted and appalled that this is happening, and that there is so much human suffering. But Warfare has changed over time, and I consider that no one system/tactic will last forever. The tank still serves a purpose, and Ukraine is even trying to complete a deal with Germany for some outdated Leopard I's, because even though they can't stand up to modern Russian tanks, they can still fill a role.

But doesn't it seem that Tanks are learning that they can't be the spearhead anymore, and that they are safer in a support role while the artillery and drones work over the enemy? I mean, the Javelin has a 90% kill ratio at 2500 yards, which is similar or better than many WWII systems.

[cathar1244]

Part of the Russian losses are caused by soft factors.

Poor leadership, lack of initiative, and failure to conduct reconnaissance.

When one blunders down a road without scouting ahead and on the flanks, stiff losses are the order of the day.

Should be enough settings in TOAW to tweak to account for that.

On tanks, my guess is in the future the best equipped armies will have at least a few battalions of MBTs with all the bells and whistles, just to joust with other heavy hitters. But most armies will go for light gun platforms with thin armor and just accept the losses that come with that. Most tank action IIRC is fire support for the infantry in any case.

Cheers

[cathar1244]

We followed up on the T29s with the M103s of the Cold War.

Those were beasts, meant to go head to head with JS-III tanks of the Soviets.

The British had the Conqueror, another ridiculously heavy tank for the era.

Cheers

[Zovs]

The MBT is not dead and those drawing the wrong conclusions from the Russian Ukrainian war and restructuring their doctrines will be doing so from an incorrect perspective. The USMC has only changed its doctrine on MBT due to its changed mission in the Pacific and has already said that its' the Army's job to deploy MBT when and where needed. The US army has always had this capability (Overload, Husky and Shingle from WW2).

When you need to go on the offense you need the MBT.

The Russians have done a piss poor job of planning, executing's and logistics in this "special military option". The Russian usage of combined arms harkens back to 1941.

The current conflict showcases just how shallow the Russian Operational and Strategical planning has been.

Several hundred knocked out tanks from ATGM does not mean that the MBT is dead, when you actually study this war.

[golden delicious]

I did read an entertaining article about how much would need to be changed/upgraded in the Transportation and Supply Systems in order to accommodate the heavier tanks, if put into production. It's easy for me, a lifelong United Statian, to take for granted that we can do anything by snapping our fingers. But I have to think about what needs to be done to add 20 tons more capacity to trains, ships, roads, bridges, ammo carriers, and whatever else I forgot. So yeah, I'd love to have a USA Heavy Tank to play with, but who wants to get 400 of them over to Europe and support them there?

USA's Heavy Tank T29 in 1944, with a 105mm Gun:

It's simple: just play a scenario where the Axis come to you!

In Fall Grau, the Allied player starts the scenario with a number of heavy tank brigades.

[sPzAbt653]

It seems that another theory is that the Russians aren't very good at electronic warfare, while the USA and UK are good at defeating these newer systems.

I wonder how much the Electronic Support factor in TOAW affects things.

[Zovs]

A Ukrainian war gamer translated and posted this, not sure how factual it is:

```The war especially strongly exposed the meanness of the Bolshevik government…

An order comes from above: ‘You must seize a certain height.’ The regiment storms it week after week, each day losing a large number of men. The replacements for casualties keep coming without interruption; there is no shortage of men. Among them there are men swollen with dystrophy from Leningrad [in the Nazi blockade], for whom doctors had just prescribed intensive feeding and staying in bed for three weeks; there are also 14-year-old kids…who should not have been drafted at all…

The only command is ‘Forward!!!’ Finally, a soldier or a lieutenant—a platoon commander—or even, infrequently, a captain—a company commander—says, while witnessing this outrageous nonsense: ‘Stop wasting the men! There is a concrete enforced pillbox on the top! And we have only the 76-mm cannon! It cannot destroy it!!!’

Immediately a politruk [political officer], a SMERSH officer, and a military tribunal start to work. One of the informers, plenty of whom are present in every unit, testifies: ‘Yes, in the presence of privates he [the officer] questioned our victory!’ After this a special printed form, where there is a space for a name, is filled in. Now everything is ready. The decision is: ‘Shoot him in front of formation!’ or ‘Send him to a punishment company!’—which is practically the same thing. This is how the most honest and responsible people perished…```

[golden delicious]

A Ukrainian war gamer translated and posted this, not sure how factual it is:

```The war especially strongly exposed the meanness of the Bolshevik government…

An order comes from above: ‘You must seize a certain height.’ The regiment storms it week after week, each day losing a large number of men. The replacements for casualties keep coming without interruption; there is no shortage of men. Among them there are men swollen with dystrophy from Leningrad [in the Nazi blockade], for whom doctors had just prescribed intensive feeding and staying in bed for three weeks; there are also 14-year-old kids…who should not have been drafted at all…

The only command is ‘Forward!!!’ Finally, a soldier or a lieutenant—a platoon commander—or even, infrequently, a captain—a company commander—says, while witnessing this outrageous nonsense: ‘Stop wasting the men! There is a concrete enforced pillbox on the top! And we have only the 76-mm cannon! It cannot destroy it!!!’

Immediately a politruk [political officer], a SMERSH officer, and a military tribunal start to work. One of the informers, plenty of whom are present in every unit, testifies: ‘Yes, in the presence of privates he [the officer] questioned our victory!’ After this a special printed form, where there is a space for a name, is filled in. Now everything is ready. The decision is: ‘Shoot him in front of formation!’ or ‘Send him to a punishment company!’—which is practically the same thing. This is how the most honest and responsible people perished…```

I'm sure it's accurate, but it obviously relates to the Second World War, so not sure how it relates to the current topic at hand.

[Zovs]

He was saying that the Russians are using the same tactics as they did in 1941-43.

[golden delicious]

He was saying that the Russians are using the same tactics as they did in 1941-43.

Well;
1) he may be saying that but the whole of the passage you quoted relates to 1941-3. What evidence does he offer that the tactics today are the same?
2) Looking over the Soviet winter operations of 1941-2, losses ranged from 40% to 100% of the initial engaged strength over a period of several months. While Russian losses have been high for 21st century standards, they haven't even begun to approach those figures. High end estimates for Russian losses are closer to 20%, which isn't consistent with the sort of self-immolation the Soviets engaged in during the Second World War. This despite the obvious increases in the lethality of defensive weapons in the intervening 80 years.

I suspect that this is a matter of perception: that the Russians are attacking in a clumsy and inexperienced way and the source is describing this in hyperbole because most people are used to the slow drip-drip of losses suffered by western armies in their foreign wars of the last 20 years. The other sources we've seen have made it clear that the Russians are relying heavily on artillery of all kinds on strongpoints and that's not consistent with the conscripts-prodded-forward-by-blocking-detachments image implied above.