Ok, this Russian TV analysis is a gleaming pearl of bullshit grown from a single grain of truth. This gets technical, but TLDR: Russian tank guns can also shoot guided missiles for long-range targets… in theory. [1]
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1618589496802516993
So, back in the 1950s & 60s, there was a school that said long-range anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) would make tanks obsolete. (Sound familiar?) One bright idea tank designers came up with in response was dual-mode tank cannons that could fire regular shells -or- ATGMs. [2]
You could then fire regular shells against most targets but keep a few more costly, bulkier ATGMs for ultra-long range shots. I -think- that’s what’s happening in this Russian TV analysis, where the T-90s are killing Leopards at extreme range without the Leopards firing back. [3]
Why -aren’t- the Leopards firing back? Because they, like most Western tanks, don’t have dual-mode guns & can’t fire ATGMs, so they must get closer to fire. And why don’t they have dual-mode cannons? Because in practice, the ability to fire ATGMs from a tank gun is a gimmick. [4]
The US tried this with the M551 Sheridan & M60A2 “Starship,” but the added complexity & cost of a gun able to launch ATGMs provided too great for the modest gain in combat power. Both tanks were mechanical nightmares. But: Would more recent technology make this work better? [5]
No. There are very few cases where an ATGMs is better than a regular anti-tank shell. The shell flies faster, so the target has less time to respond. It doesn’t need guidance the target can jam or decoy. It doesn’t need an explosive warhead the enemy can set off prematurely. [6]
The main advantage of ATGMs is they have rocket motors so they don’t need a cannon to launch them, so they can fit on light vehicles or even be carried by infantry. But a tank cannon that can fire ATGMs is (surprise!) still as big & heavy as a regular tank cannon. [7]
The other advantage of ATGMs over tank shells is they have longer range — which, again, is what I think is happening in the Russian video, where the T-90s are killing the Leopards from 5 km (3+ miles) away, before the Leopards can shoot back. But in real life… [8]
…tanks rarely get a clear shot at a target 5km/3mi away: Obstacles get in the way — trees, buildings, hills — and targeting systems struggle to get an accurate lock. Ultra-long shots are more likely in very flat terrain like the Mideastern desert or Ukrainian steppe, but… [9]
… even if a group of Leopards / Abrams / etc -were- caught in the open at long range & started getting picked off by ATGMs, they wouldn’t charge blindly into Russian fire & did like the Light Brigade in Crimea, as in this video: They’d pop smoke, pull back, & find cover. [10]
Big picture 1: Tactics typically trump technology. The Russian video assumes the enemy will play to Russian strengths & ignore Russian weaknesses. Bad assumption. [11]
Big picture 2: Despite the Russian reputation for simple, rugged tech (#AK-47), the USSR bet big on ambitious things that didn’t work well — eg ATGM-launching tank guns with autoloaders. That contributed to them overspending their economy into oblivion & losing the Cold War. [12]
As always, eager to hear what real armor experts have to say about my analysis. @jon_jeckell @nicholadrummond @general_ben @MarkHertling @Chieftain_armor @ZalogaSteven
PS: for details on the American M1 Abrams and which upgraded variants might be headed for Ukraine, read here: breakingdefense.com/2023/01/what-w…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
