It’s hard to believe, but the design limitations of modern battle tanks were decided decades
before the first tank was even invented, and that’s because of … railways!
When tanks were first invented in 1915, railways were pretty much the only option to transport
tanks around the country.
And this holds true to this day, as alternative modes of transportation are rarely used.
This means that tanks have to be narrow-enough to fit on a railway car, which limits the
width of the tank.
But limiting the width, in turn limited the length of the tank, because in order for tracks
to turn, they have to be of specific proportions.
But why not just drive the tanks wherever they need to go?
For the same reason you don’t drive your Ferrari across the country: unnecessary wear
& tear, and also tanks are slow as fffffforty five miles per hour!
Except for tanks in video games.
Today’s video is sponsored by Conflict of Nations, a Free Online PVP Strategy Game.
If like us, you are a fan of long-term strategy battles, Conflict of Nations is just right
for you.
Choose a real country to lead in a Modern Global Warfare.
You can use anything from tanks to Nuclear Submarines to build your military, declare
war on your neighbors, and engage in battles to take over the world.
These long-term strategy games can take weeks to complete.
This game is fully cross-platform, so play Conflict of Nations with the same account
on both PC and Mobile devices, with up to 128 other players in real-time.
And we bring you an exclusive offer: Click on the link in the description to get 13000
gold and 1 month of Premium Subscription for free!
This offer is only available for 30 days, so don’t miss out.
So … are tanks obsolete?
It is easy to say “yes” but that would be premature.
With the whole world following the humanitarian catastrophe during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian
war, the military analysts are watching something else.
They are learning invaluable lessons on what truly works in modern warfare.
The traditional might of the Russian army versus the much smaller, but well equipped
Ukrainian insurgence.
This war of two highly developed nations, offers a rare opportunity to see how modern
weapons work, how they interact in action and counteraction.
This sort of interaction is impossible to simulate in peacetime exercises.
As military experts are analyzing the current conflict, governments are already adjusting
their budgets on a fly.
For instance, just last week the Pentagon increased its counter-small drone weapons
program 7 fold!
Those Turkish TB-2 drones are proving extremely effective in Ukraine.
Additionally Pentagon nearly quintupled its Air and Missile Defense research line.
Meanwhile, the Russian combat drone industry and its military-industrial complex is in
crisis mode - due to sanctions!
However, Russians still “may” have a trump card, and it is not nukes, but a “cyber
pearl harbor”.
But before we talk about what the Russian combat drones are really made of, and one
of largest wartime cyber attacks that happened during the early hours of the invasion, let's
get back to tanks for a minute.
The problem with tanks is an economic one.
A $30,000 anti-tank missile can destroy a $10 million dollars tank.
For example, the United Kingdom supplied Ukraine with thousands of NLAW anti-tank weapons that
have a range up to 0.6 miles.
Reportedly, Ukrainians call it “N-Love” and have been often caught saying “God save
the queen” as they fire N-Loves into Russian tanks.
It is possible to counter anti-tank missiles by having an infantry screen ahead of the
tank that can neutralize anyone trying to fire a weapon at them in the first place.
However, as the range of the anti-tank missiles increases, neutralization becomes harder to
do.
For instance, an American Javelin system has a range of up to 2.5 miles.
So are anti-tank missiles a battleship moment for tanks?
Just like how during World War II airplanes, aircraft carriers and submarines rendered
the massive battleships obsolete.
From an economical and tactical point of view, N-Love and Javelin systems make tanks obsolete.
But what about all the defense systems that tanks have?
Modern tanks weigh 80+ tons and have high tech defense systems, such as reactive armor
which explodes when it’s hit to neutralize the explosive force of the incoming munition.
They can also intercept incoming anti-tank missiles.
Electronic warfare built into tanks can incapacitate nearby drones and rockets.
But it just gets too expensive too quickly as threats become cheaper and more effective.
Additionally, there are limits to how much protection you can put into a tank.
The amount of armor on a tank is a compromise between mobility, protection and firepower.
As we discussed earlier, the dimensions of the tank are limited by the width of a rail
car.
Tanks do work best in open areas like desert or steppe.
In urban environments, tanks … are sitting ducks, as mobile teams can be in any of the
buildings firing a missile and relocating quickly to fire again at a different tank.
Even with all the modern defense systems, the scale is tipped toward cheaper countermeasures
such as anti-tank missiles and drones.
To date Russian forces have lost 476 tanks according to the Ukrainian military.
Open source intelligence have verified at least 263 Russian tank losses using pictures
.
But here’s the thing.
Drones and missiles cannot hold ground!
Meanwhile Infantry needs armor not only to travel from point A to point B but to also
hold position.
Infantry would still use protected armored vehicles, then disband the vehicle and travel
on foot covertly to engage the enemy.
When antitank missiles were developed in the early 1970s, analysts were predicting the
end of tanks.
Yet that hasn’t happened as tanks were used during Arab-Isral war, Iran-Iraq war and in
the US wars in Iraq.
But those wars were fought in deserts, in wide open terrains.
During the Nagorno-Karabakh war of 2020, drones dominated tanks.
Similarly during the current Russo-Ukrainian war, anti-tank missiles, drones and even artillery
are dominating armored vehicles.
The future tanks are predicted to have significantly less armor and prioritize mobility over protection.
As no matter how much armor you have, the modern anti-tank weapons will destroy them
anyway!
While legacy armies were built around main battle tanks, the new doctrine is about “combined
arms”.
Tanks, infantry, aircraft and artillery working together.
The real problem is not that tanks can be easily destroyed, but it is a command problem.
How do you manage all the assets that you have, including tanks, in the best possible
way.
The United States still buys about 100 tanks per year, despite Marines having given up
on them, calling them “obsolete”.
The British are also procuring 148 Challenger 3 tanks.
As we are going to talk about drones next, let's briefly talk about helicopters.
During the early hours of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Russia sent dozens of helicopters to
Antonov airport at Gostomel, which is north west of Kyiv.
But things didn’t go according to plan.
While Russians attempted to eliminate radar controlled Surface to Air Missile Systems,
Ukrainians started using man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, such as Soviet
Igla and Strela, which proved deadly.
After the initial success by Ukrainian forces, Western allies such as Germany started supplying
Ukraine with Stinger anti-air missiles.
Yet again, this shows the power of asymmetric warfare, where a $40,000 weapon can destroy
a $15 million dollar helicopter.
Before the war began, defense experts believed that Russian forces would have little trouble
dealing with a few dozens of Ukrainian drones.
But everyone, including western intelligence, also believed that Russia would achieve a
swift victory in Ukraine.
However, the reality is that drones are literally “killing it” during this war.
Combat drones have been ambushing Russian convoys, while surveillance drones like the
Ukrainian “Leleka-100” have been guiding artillery fire.
Even consumer drones such as DJI Mavic are heavily used, both by Russians and Ukrainians.
A Turkish TB-2 Bayraktar drone can cruise at 70 knots for up to 27 hours, while carrying
up to four small laser-guided bombs.
While its operational range is up to 93 miles, military analysts suggest the practical range
of about 5 miles.
There are two ways to counter the Bayraktar drone, either shoot it down with a SAM, or
to use electronic warfare to jam the radio datalinks between the drone and its ground
control unit.
What’s interesting is that despite the Russian army having a range of SAM systems and advanced
electronic warfare capabilities, they have been unable to neutralize the Bayraktar threat.
One military analyst, Justin Bronk, proposed the following explanations for the above.
First, due to Russian forces' inability to coordinate, the columns of Russian armored
vehicles rushed beyond the cover of their SAM systems.
This allowed Ukrainians to cease an opportunity to ambush the columns.
Secondly, it appears that Russian forces have been engaging in electronic warfare far less
frequently than expected.
Jamming the Ukrainian capabilities without jamming your own would be very hard without
complex planning.
And we all know a thing or two about Russian planning.
Additionally, Russian forces had substantial problems with their own communication equipment.
It’s been documented that the Russian military relied on cheap Chinese walkie-talkies and
stolen mobile phones.
Thus jamming radio waves would not only be trouble for Ukrainians, but for Russians as
well.
Keep in mind that TB-2 Bayraktar drones have a smaller radar cross-section than a larger
jet.
In addition, these drones have the BSI-101 Signal intelligence system that can detect
and track radars of ground-based air defense systems.
All this makes it harder to shoot them down.
Another reason for the success of Bayraktar is the fact that the United States is guiding
Ukraine on how and when to operate their drones, as was confirmed by a US defense official.
Specifically, it is believed that Ukrainians received a “go-ahead” to use the drones
against specific targets after receiving intelligence from NATO’s reconnaissance assets.
The drone success story, while impressive, only accounts for a limited number of Russian
vehicles destroyed.
We should probably mention that the United States recently announced that they will provide
Ukraine with killer switchblade drones which are capable of hitting and destroying targets
up to 40 kilometers away.
But Russians also appear to have been extensively using their surveillance drones.
What’s interesting is what Ukranians found when analyzing downed Russian drones.
Upon inspection of downed Russian drones such as Orlan, Eleron, Forpost and Granat, it turned
out that only airframes and parachutes were made in Russia.
All the internal electronics were foreign-made civilian-grade products.
One engine was made in Japan by Saito Seisakusho, a starter-generator made in the US by Texas
Instruments Inc, telemetry controller made in the US by Microchip, flight controller
made by European STMicroelectronics, while the GPS tracker was made in China.
Eleron’s photographic equipment is actually made from Sony and Olympus “point-and-shoot
cameras”.
Not a single Russian made drone captured in Syria or Ukraine had any Russian-made electronics.
The biggest weakness of the Russian military-industrial complex is its inability to master the productions
of modern microelectronics, be it chips or other sensors.
For example, even components for the Bulava missile rely on imported American microchips.
Is cyber really a game changer?
Imagine a modern day “Pearl Harbor-like” event, but in cyberspace.
Adversaries would cripple their enemies' infrastructure by shutting down power grids, disabling satellites,
and bricking all communication equipment in the country.
This would end the war even before it begins.
Imagine China remotely disabling the US Pacific Fleet just by a push of a button.
Such an event is called a “cyber Pearl Harbor”.
Yet military analysts point out that this is “fantasy land” and that cyber wars
are overrated and unproven.
There have not been any operational results yet.
No “cyber pearl harbors” have occurred to date.
What has happened is some websites being down for short periods of time.
That's hardly the same as the sinking of 8 battleships, 300 aircraft destroyed, and 2400
dead troops.
With that said, it's hard to truly judge the capabilities of adversary cyber threats, because
of secrecy.
The vulnerabilities are usually discovered ahead of time and kept in secret until such
time when those vulnerabilities are used.
How many of these vulnerabilities Russia poses is unknown.
Maybe they are just waiting for the right time to unleash all of it at once.
But it hasn't happened yet.
What has happened is this:
Two weeks after the Russian invasion, Western officials revealed one of the largest wartime
cyber attacks that was publicly disclosed.
On February 24th, 2022, between 5 and 9 AM, just as Russian forces started their missile
attack upon Ukraine, hackers targeted modems that communicate with the Viasat KA-SAT satellite,
which supplies internet access to customers in Europe, including Ukrainian military and
police units.
The affected modems were completely out of commission; not a single light on the Viasat-made
devices would turn on.
Viasat said that “misconfiguration in the management section” gave hackers remote
access into the modems.
To bring them back online, each modem would need to be reprogrammed by a technician on-site
or be completely swapped out.
The benefit of this cyber attack is obvious, as it could hinder communication between Ukrainian
military units.
Traditional land-based radios can only reach so far.
This also explains why Elon Musk donated truck loads of Starlink systems to Ukraine.
What is interesting is that at least three wind turbines in Germany were acknowledged
to use Viasat modems that were hacked.
The result was that wind turbines could not be monitored or controlled remotely.
They still generated electricity as they were operating nominally.
But still you get the picture.
Imagine someone hacks into windmill farms, and remotely messess the settings that can
permanently destroy the farm.
According to experts, this cyber attack was conducted by professionals, and the purpose
was clear, to disrupt the internet connections in certain areas.
There was no economic motive.
It is widely believed that Russians are behind this cyber attack.
Three weeks after the attack many modems still remain unoperational.
Thanks again to Conflict of Nations for sponsoring today’s video.
Click on the link in the description to get 13,000 gold and 1 month of Premium Subscription
for free.
Download the game and take advantage of this exclusive offer, only available for 30 days.
Fighting your way to victory starts here.