Thread by @T_90_M

As I've promised, here's a deep down on why @NicholaDrummond is wrong and why wheeled 8x8 assault guns won't become more popular after the war in Ukraine.

A thread🧵

https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1727662173340463159?s=20

@nicholadrummond 1⃣ "Tank-on-tank combat is a rarity rather than the norm"

False.
While being outpaced by artillery and ATGM, tanks are still routinely killing enemy AFV on a daily basis and both Telegram and Twitter are full of videos of Russian tanks succesfully engaging enemy armor with ATGM,

@nicholadrummond HEAT and even APFSDS rounds. The rarity more correctly applies to the Ukrainian tanks emerging victorious, and since he tendentiously covers Ukrainian victories, he's probably aware only of the very few (less than 5, I believe) videos of AFU tanks destroying Russian ones.

@nicholadrummond Just like Iraqi tanks during the Persian Gulf Wars, Ukrainian tanks are outarmored, outgunned and, most importantly, lacks thermal sights and battle management systems. But Iraqi tanks rarely destroying Abrams didn't mean that the other way around was a rare occurrence too.

@nicholadrummond Coupled with insufficient training and lack of experienced crews, these are the main reasons behind Ukrainian tanks faring this bad against Russian armor; it should also be mentioned that recording tank-vs-tank engagements is difficult as MBT work at longer ranges (up to 9,5 km)

@nicholadrummond than infantrymen do, and not always there's an observation drone supporting them like with artillery; however this doesn't mean that this kind of engagements are statistically irrelevant and that the AT capability of MBT should be discarded.

@nicholadrummond 2⃣ "Tanks are mostly being defeated with missiles not tungsten penetrators"

Misleading.
The fact that artillery and infantry AT weapons are responsible for the most destructions is completely irrelevant since a) that has always been the case;

@nicholadrummond b) this fact only tells us the difference in capabilities between the two, with Russian artillery and aerial superiority allowing them to strike AFU before they can even reach the battlefield, and Ukrainian being more succesful in guerrilla-like warfare.
armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russ…

@nicholadrummond If Russia had less long-range assets and Ukraine had better logistics and more trained forces, we would likely witness even more armor engagements. It furthermore should be considered the industrial disparity between the two countries:

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1657618171640127489?s=20

@nicholadrummond unlike Russia, which has a fully-working tank industry, Ukraine is more reliant on NATO supplies and has to deploy its tank fleet more sparingly, avoiding head-on clash with the better equipped and trained Russian counterpart.

@nicholadrummond 3⃣ "tanks are being used as assault guns to support infantry in the attack, which is why older types such as Leopard 1 have proved so useful"

Misleading, and false.
The fact that (old) tanks can also be used as assault guns shouldn't infer that they should focus on that role.

@nicholadrummond They're called "MAIN BATTLE tanks" for a reason, that being tanks should serve as a Jack-of-All trades and be able to bear the brunt of the fight. Of any fight: direct fire support, indirect fire support, breakhtrough attack, anti-tank fire, etc.

@nicholadrummond Vehicles more dedicated to infantry support, like assault guns, IFV and even new concepts like BMPT do exist, but they will never fill the large MBTs' shoes.

@nicholadrummond And, in addition, his claim that "Leopard 1 have proved useful" is completely baseless as by November 24th there has been only a single video of a Leopard 1A5 anywhere near the frontline, and no evidence at all backing the claim it has been succesfully employed

@nicholadrummond as assault guns (especially considering that Ukraine, with its limited number of tanks, can't afford to be picky and deploy Leopard 1s only for infantry support-- mark my words, we will see Leopard 1s being operated as if they were any other tank - just like they did with M55S).

@nicholadrummond Russian T-62M and Ukrainian M55S are the only "older tanks" used in relevant numbers, but he doesn't mention them because Russians were mocked for handling T-62M to artillery units and M55S were used as MBT and not as assault guns (suffering heavy casualties in the process).

@nicholadrummond 4⃣ "new 105 mm are still equally lethal [as 120 mm] and you can carry more"

False.
Larger tank gun calibers like 120 mm Rheinmetall L44/L55 and 125 mm 2A46, besides having better ballistics, longer range, bigger payload and better performances against reinforced concrete, are

@nicholadrummond usually fitted on more modern vehicles which are more likely to be also fitted with newer FCS allowing them to fire ATGM (which most T-55s, T-62s and all Leopard 1s can't launch) and programmable ammo like airburst rounds (3OF82 being used since October).

https://x.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1708091937750712510?s=20

@nicholadrummond In near future, current tanks will be able to fire kinetic-energy, beyond-line-of-sight rounds (like the cancelled XM1111 MRM-KE), which will allow MBT to achieve GLATGM ranges at a fraction of the cost and with greatly reduced flight and exposure time.

@nicholadrummond Smaller caliber rounds will likely catch up in future, but availability will always be lower on such systems, as most 105 mm platforms would need to be retrofitted in order to guide those rounds on the target, the market is smaller and will likely become even smaller every year.

@nicholadrummond 5⃣ "Survivability is less dependent on passive armour and more reliant on active protection systems that can defeat ATGM and aerial threats, especially drones"

False.
While APS will indeed increase a tank's ability to survive on the battlefield,

https://twitter.com/simpatico771/status/1723242770935017811

@nicholadrummond a decent passive armor is not only also useful to withstand guns and ATGM, but it's essential to fight conventional wars against an adversary which heavily employs artillery.

A suggested read on the everlasting danger posed by artillery (even dumb one): documents.pub/document/who-s…

@nicholadrummond Soft-skinned vehicles like the AMX-10RC received harsh criticism even by their Ukrainian operators (which is quite unheard of) due to their vulnerability against shrapnels from mines, grenades and, of course, artillery rounds.

https://x.com/narrative_hole/status/1675551375369830401?s=20

@nicholadrummond Even heavy machine guns like KPV are enough to take out AMX-10RC, which is the reason France developed a "surblindé" kit, which however drastically impacted the vehicle's amphibious and cross-country capabilities.
(left, stock AMX-10RC; right, the surblindé)

@nicholadrummond Against aerial threats, having a decent passive armor is even more important as lightly armored vehicles are vulnerable to FPV drones and 25/30/35 mm rounds fired by aircraft autocannons whereas tanks are mostly immune to them (or surely far, far more resilient and require much

@nicholadrummond more effort to be taken out = more enemy manpower being simoultaneously engaged). Finally, by writing so Drummond is taking as granted the idea that no matter what, even the most armored vehicle will sucumb to enemy fire, hence passive protection is ultimately overrated.

@nicholadrummond Intriguing concept, but which is solely based on survival bias and completely discards the hundreds, if not thousands, of lives saved by passive and reactive armor in Ukraine.

https://x.com/TankDiary/status/1624317839359283202?s=20

@nicholadrummond Drummond is literally behaving like one of those WW2 weirdos who were welding all sorts of dumb shit to bombers' bellies just because those were the only sections hit by enemy AA on surviving aricraft.
(Sloppy explanation, but I'm sure you already know this story)

@nicholadrummond Abraham Wald suggested, the damages sustained by the bombers which hadn't survived were actually much more revealing-- or, in our case, the characteristics of NOT destroyed tanks those most important for survivability.

@nicholadrummond 6⃣ "The best means of survivability is exiting an area quickly & hiding"

False.
First, Drummond uses "protection" and "survivability" as two exchangeable terms and it's very annoying, because in armored warfare the latter is more strictly used to describe the chances of survival

@nicholadrummond of the crew in case their vehicle gets hit and pierced.
Second, there's no "best means" of survival on the battlefield as the enemy has all sorts of weapons for any specific situation.

@nicholadrummond In order to stress how important context is in armored warfare, experienced defence analyst and strategic consultant developed the idea of a "protection onion", in which any layer of defence is important: the layers go from "don't encounter" to "don't be penetrated", and with the

@nicholadrummond ongoing trend of modern MBT featuring all sorts of communication, observation and electric warfare systems, I envision how in future a lot of focus will be in detecting/suppressing the electronic signature of tanks.
thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3…

@nicholadrummond But going back to Drummond, while the "protection onion" was intended to show how armor alone isn't enough to protect a vehicle, saying that mobility and low visibility should be given the priority is the worst choice you can made.

@nicholadrummond Not only, as I've already argued, a good passive defense is needed to withstand the most common threat on the battlefield (artillery, mines, and grenades' shrapnels), but on modern battlefield enemy vehicles are mostly spotted by thermal imaging equipment and can be accurately

@nicholadrummond hit even on the move either by fire saturation or with precision-guided ammunition. It doesn't matter how nimble and fast enemy vehicles are, thermals and automated tracking softwares (a combo used by the most modern Russian tanks) will always trump that.

https://x.com/T_90_M/status/1646486384209690624?s=20

@nicholadrummond And no, while thermal camouflage exists and it indeed reduces a vehicle's signature, it doesn't make it impossible to spot while on the move as hot exhausts and the attrition of metal tracks still make it easily stand out to thermals.

https://x.com/AFVRec_/status/1624486178383712259?s=20

@nicholadrummond 7⃣ "Operational mobility has become increasingly important"

True.
This is the only undesputable point which can't be argued against. Too bad Drummond is using this argument to push the idea of wheeled assault guns being a more cost-effective alternative to tanks.

@nicholadrummond They're not, and not only because as I've explained they're not more survivable than tanks due to their smaller silhuette and higher speed, but mainly because (rull of Drumms-ond) they actually have worse mobility too.

https://x.com/LogKa11/status/1674021658212827136?s=20

@nicholadrummond It can sound counter-intuitive how 8x8 vehicles are less mobile than tracked ones despite being lighter, but it must be remembered how tracked tanks were invented for: to traverse muddy, soft ground which was impractical to wheeled vehicles, which may be faster but which also put

@nicholadrummond an higher pressure on the ground. Both the Centauro and the Type 16 he like to reference were developed in a similar context for the same need, that of providing the respective armed forces of fast firing platforms for coastal defense. Both are road-bound vehicles.

@nicholadrummond The Russians were actually very interested in the B1 Centauro, but during tests they discovered it was too heavy for Eastern European soil and it didn't cope well with mud and snow, being only serviceable on paved roads which, especially in spring and autumn, severely limited its

@nicholadrummond operational use. And if we've learned anything by paying attention to the war in Ukraine (unlike Drummond), it's that being road-bound only means you're going to fall into pre-settled killzone (where chances of survivability for a 8x8 light vehicles are 0)

https://x.com/PatriotOSINT/status/1502428478431547421?s=20

@nicholadrummond CONCLUSION: no, wheeled assault guns won't likely play a more prominent role in future wars, as their vulnerability to most weapons and they're bad cross-country performances will stick them to the niche role they already have in most armies.

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1728104580448473183?s=20

@nicholadrummond The next evolutionary step will rather be, for as anti-climatic it may sound, the refinement of existing armored vehicles in order to make them carry more and better ammo, engage farther targets, feature sturdier and more lightweight armor, and tailor their protection towards the

@nicholadrummond increasing threat of drones. As the Israeli-Palestinian War has already shown, the much mocked cope cages invented by Russia are the first "evolutionary step" which the world is already embracing.

https://x.com/IranDefense/status/1713910822383059223?s=20

@nicholadrummond And this would be the end.
Thanks for reading!

Please write any correction or additional information under this tweet!
Cheers

@nicholadrummond @UnrollHelper