[Gaur]

Zorawar arrives in Laddakh (nyoma) for winter trials.
Looks good, hope it aces the trials.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

A question to the experts, are tanks and other infantry weapons still relevant?
The current Ukraine and Russia war showcases extensive uses of smaller drones dropping bombs eliminating both soldiers and other weaponry. What's the point of an expensive tank when it can be destroyed by a couple-hundred worth drone?

Interesting question. I am not qualified to answer it but I may be vain and delusional enough to attempt. Is this a genuine question or is this a cynical rhetorical one. If you could let me know first. Thanks.

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Interesting question. I am not qualified to answer it but I may be vain and delusional enough to attempt. Is this a genuine question or is this a cynical rhetorical one. If you could let me know first. Thanks.

This definitely is a genuine question.

I checked ChatGPT and it said the tanks were used as recently as in Ukraine war when Ukrainian forces used a drone to destroy a Russian tank; and that the last time tanks were used effectively was in Gulf war in 1991.

So, he question remains. If you can use a cheap drone to take out a tank, why use it? It doesn't even need manpower unlike RPGs or risks anyone in danger.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

So, he question remains. If you can use a cheap drone to take out a tank, why use it? It doesn't even need manpower unlike RPGs or risks anyone in danger.

I,for one, believe that Armies round the world will evolve tactics and counter measures against drones not only for their armour but to protect infantry as well - we have seen videos of helpless foot soldiers begging for their life from these drones only to get bombed or "kamikazed" by the same drones, which is distressing to watch).

Back in the 70s, when the first accurate Anti-tank guided missiles started coming in, similar "death of the mighty tank" stories would have been written because a tank would have been seen as helpless against an ATGM back then. But tactics and CMs evolved and almost 50 years later, tanks continue to rumble on battlefields around the world.

[Yusha]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

This definitely is a genuine question.

I checked ChatGPT and it said the tanks were used as recently as in Ukraine war when Ukrainian forces used a drone to destroy a Russian tank; and that the last time tanks were used effectively was in Gulf war in 1991.

So, he question remains. If you can use a cheap drone to take out a tank, why use it? It doesn't even need manpower unlike RPGs or risks anyone in danger.

Yes, tanks are now being considered out dated. The US Marine Core have dumped all their tanks now because they do not fit in their warfare and operations strategy.

They are parked in the desert somewhere and some of them have been acquired by the US Army.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Yusha

Yes, tanks are now being considered out dated. The US Marine Core have dumped all their tanks now because they do not fit in their warfare and operations strategy.
.

I don't think this is quite the indictment of tanks that you think it is. Two decades of the War on Terror saw the USMC essentially fighting as a land army with all the accoutrement that come with that, MBTs, HIMARS, etc. What the big shift laid out by Gen Berger entailed was a return to their roots for the USMC to their island hopping days of WW2, especially in light of the whole pivot to the Pacific for the US armed forces as a whole, as they engage in great power competition with China. For all it's pros and cons, the Abrams (or any modern MBT for that matter) isn't exactly portable but that's not to say it's ineffectual. (The irony being this particular tangent occurring on a thread ostensibly about a lightweight, portable tank..)

Anyway as skanchan95 alluded to earlier, this isn't the first time we've had proclamations of the death of tanks. Just as active protection systems like Trophy came about in response to ATGMs, we've seen the adoption of so called 'cope cages' above the turrets of MBTs firstly by the Russians and then by the Ukrainians as well. So in the grand old tradition of moves and counter moves in military development watch someone come up with a cheap way to negate the OTS drones with tacked on explosives being used in Ukraine - my money's on some kind of heavy duty jamming array. Use EW to fry the drones control logic once it's in the vicinity and let it fall harmlessly.

Also to belabour a point that keeps getting missed, whenever this tired old point about the vulnerability of tanks to some old bloke with a Carl Gustav rifle or a DJI grenade edition comes up, everyone seemingly forgets that the easiest defence is the fact that said MBT is meant to ideally operate with an infantry element. Private Schmo is the one who ideally deals with that low end threat on behalf of the tank just as the tank provides the cover and long range fires capacity for that ground element. You can't be denigrating kit designed for combined arms doctrine when it isn't used as envisioned.

[skviknaraj]

Originally Posted by Gaur

Zorawar arrives in Laddakh (nyoma) for winter trials.
Looks good, hope it aces the trials.

Attachment 2689103

Do you think this image can be shared on open forums?

[Gannu_1]

Originally Posted by skviknaraj

Do you think this image can be shared on open forums?

The image and the test firing videos are available in public space.

[somersault]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

A question to the experts, are tanks and other infantry weapons still relevant?
The current Ukraine and Russia war showcases extensive uses of smaller drones dropping bombs eliminating both soldiers and other weaponry. What's the point of an expensive tank when it can be destroyed by a couple-hundred worth drone?

I am not an expert here but I will try to answer purely on the basis of the theory.
1. Tanks act as a fast and cost effective way of offense and occupation of the enemy territory. You can use a missile and drone to attack but it can not be used for a long time. You need to have a physical presence on the ground to occupy a territory and advance it. Enemy soldiers and people "see" the tanks for a long time when in the battlefield. Whereas the missile or drone will be momentary, even though it can kill the tank.

2. Whereas missiles and drones are primarily used for defense and used for attacking on the incoming intruder. It can also be used as an offense tactics, provided you attack military or commercial establishment. You can not simply fire a missile randomly. There has to be a target to attack. It can not be civilians. But once missiles are fired, they are momentary and people will scramble to shelters or protection area. Once attack is done, the existing enemy people will still have the control on the area. So purpose of occupation can not be achieved.

3. Cost of using the missiles and drones in the war is much higher than using the tanks in the actual battlefield. How many times you can fire them for defense and offense is a question that always remains. Hence, tanks are used for field superiority in the war theater.

I remember some American movie on the Afghan War, where a soldier used shoulder fired missile to destroy an incoming terrorist civilian vehicle. While the soldier becomes happy with the result, the captain becomes angry as the cost of the missile is very much higher than the cost of the target destroyed.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

I checked ChatGPT and it said the tanks were used as recently as in Ukraine war when Ukrainian forces used a drone to destroy a Russian tank; and that the last time tanks were used effectively was in Gulf war in 1991.

So, he question remains. If you can use a cheap drone to take out a tank, why use it? It doesn't even need manpower unlike RPGs or risks anyone in danger.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Back in the 70s, when the first accurate Anti-tank guided missiles started coming in, similar "death of the mighty tank" stories would have been written because a tank would have been seen as helpless against an ATGM back then. But tactics and CMs evolved and almost 50 years later, tanks continue to rumble on battlefields around the world.

Originally Posted by ads11

Also to belabour a point that keeps getting missed, whenever this tired old point about the vulnerability of tanks to some old bloke with a Carl Gustav rifle or a DJI grenade edition comes up, everyone seemingly forgets that the easiest defence is the fact that said MBT is meant to ideally operate with an infantry element. Private Schmo is the one who ideally deals with that low end threat on behalf of the tank just as the tank provides the cover and long range fires capacity for that ground element. You can't be denigrating kit designed for combined arms doctrine when it isn't used as envisioned.

Gentlemen, as ads11 and skanchan95 rightly pointed out, the death of battle tanks as a system has been trumpeted probably since the day the tank was invented. It's not just tanks to be honest, the same goes with other large systems meant to dominate and shock the battlefield such as aircraft carriers, long-range bombers etc. What we do have to keep in mind is that these systems effectively function as a form of cavalry (many Indian Army mechanized regiments are known as & descended from cavalry regiments after all) and if you look at history, the cavalry has always been susceptible to non-regular forces. In the Battle of Agincourt for example, the English Longbowmen (equivalent to today's missiles/drones, I'd say) ran circles around the heavily armed French Knights. But it did not mean the end of heavily armed cavalry, they just adapted. A similar more modern analogy can be drawn with IPRK's experience in Sri Lanka when the LTTE irregulars ran circles around Indian T-72s - this was pre-Gulf War mind you.

We have to keep in mind that cavalry in isolation can't turn tides in wars, its combined arms that do. The First Gulf War is a great example of how combined arms can assist armies in dominating the battlefield, keep in mind that the Iraqi Army and Air Force at the time were among the biggest & most battle-hardened in the world while their T-72s, Mig-29s etc. were relatively modern for the era.

Even in the modern era, while we've examples of how tanks are struggling to cope due to poor tactics in Ukraine and Armenia, we've another example of intense irregular warfare where tanks aren't getting blown up every other day which is Israel's operations in Gaza and Hezbollah. Hezbollah are a top-notch fighting force and they would've been just as successful as Ukraine or Azerbaijan if wasn't for the well-honed and perfected combined arms tactics of the Israelis (keeping aside the legality and morality of their ops).

Now, India hasn't actually fought a war in the open field since 1971 and hasn't had a tank battle since Sri Lanka, so it's anybody's guess how good India's combined arms tactics are, though given the pedigree of the Indian military and the comments from other counterpart militaries, I'd bet it's far better than Russia or Armenia.

[RijuC]

Ahh...this was the testing ground for the tanks? We have seen a number of similar machines doing rounds in Nyoma. Though it's absolutely impossible for me to differentiate (or identity) the models; however, it was fascinating for me to drive through the road with tank crossing signboards and the exotic machines and most capable army men everywhere doing their scheduled activities. No visuals though, didn't capture anything on mobile, dashcam memory was overwritten by next FIFO video clip.