# Pentagon prepping for tank war with Russia



## Devildoc (May 20, 2016)

Just this week I was reminiscing with someone about the Cold War, the multiple army infantry and armor divisions, the heavy influence/presence in Europe.  It seems they are blowing the dust off the old playbooks.

How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia


----------



## Gunz (May 20, 2016)

Armored warfare on the plains of Europe. 

The Russians have a damn good track record when it comes to armored warfare and tank development. It would not surprise me at all if they have surpassed the US and NATO in this regard.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 20, 2016)

Tanks with anti armor shields sounds really cool and also very scary.


----------



## DA SWO (May 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Just this week I was reminiscing with someone about the Cold War, the multiple army infantry and armor divisions, the heavy influence/presence in Europe.  It seems they are blowing the dust off the old playbooks.
> 
> How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia


Funny how Romney was wildly laughed at by Liberals when he said Russia was a threat.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 20, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Funny how Romney was wildly laughed at by Liberals when he said Russia was a threat.



Having more support from the GOP, would have been nice. Not only about this, but Bengazi was put to bed way too early. Romney should have hammered the hell out of obama with Bengazi fresh and active.


----------



## AWP (May 20, 2016)

At least we have a plane designed to kill tan....

Oh, never mind. Disregard.


----------



## pardus (May 20, 2016)

The first echelon of US forces to encounter a major OPFOR in real combat will be slaughtered IMHO.

I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Etype (May 21, 2016)

We also thought the Iraqis were such a combat proven tank/artillery force leading up to the Gulf War, and the Nazis were supposed to be the same. We cut through the Iraqis with no problems and although we took heavy loses against the Nazis, we maintained pretty consistent forward momentum.

The best way to prepare for a tank battle is on the aerial gunnery range. Tanks are about as legitimate on today's battlefield as battleships were on the seas in WWII- the bulk of them will be destroyed by air power.

eta-


Freefalling said:


> At least we have a plane designed to kill tan....
> 
> Oh, never mind. Disregard.


Laser JDAMs, every plane can carry them.

A-10s were great in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'd think we'd need something faster, higher flying, and with a lesser radar signature against the Russians.

eta 2-
Don't forget, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 can also carry Maverick Missiles.


----------



## AWP (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> We also thought the Iraqis were such a combat proven tank/artillery force leading up to the Gulf War, and the Nazis were supposed to be the same. We cut through the Iraqis with no problems and although we took heavy loses against the Nazis, we maintained pretty consistent forward momentum.
> 
> The best way to prepare for a tank battle is on the aerial gunnery range. Tanks are about as legitimate on today's battlefield as battleships were on the seas in WWII- the bulk of them will be destroyed by air power.



Yes and no. Air power has consistently overestimated "kills" on the battlefield. In France 1944 and Iraq 1.0 and 2.0, airpower did kill a large number of vehicles, but far less than estimated by their respective air staffs. The Germans specifically pointed to tac air disrupting movement as a greater penalty than machines destroyed. The Panzer Lehr and 2nd SS Das Reich divisions were savaged by airpower, but it kept those divisions from committing whole units to the fight. Instead they trickled into the front and we never faced their combined might.

There's no doubt modern airpower would take a chunk out of a modern armored division, but it will still come down to killing tanks from the ground, not the air. Air power's greatest "contribution" is the multiple prongs of killing and disrupting formations, logistics, and communications.


----------



## Etype (May 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Yes and no. Air power has consistently overestimated "kills" on the battlefield. In France 1944 and Iraq 1.0 and 2.0, airpower did kill a large number of vehicles, but far less than estimated by their respective air staffs. The Germans specifically pointed to tac air disrupting movement as a greater penalty than machines destroyed. The Panzer Lehr and 2nd SS Das Reich divisions were savaged by airpower, but it kept those divisions from committing whole units to the fight. Instead they trickled into the front and we never faced their combined might.
> 
> There's no doubt modern airpower would take a chunk out of a modern armored division, but it will still come down to killing tanks from the ground, not the air. Air power's greatest "contribution" is the multiple prongs of killing and disrupting formations, logistics, and communications.


I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to argue that the US didn't achieve ANY armor kills in WWII.

It takes a direct hit to kill armor with a bomb, the high is pretty tough even for a dive bomber. Only the Germans and Russians had big enough guns on aircraft to penetrate armor, and even then, I wouldn't count on them to knock out MBTs.

It's not WWII anymore, our fighters carry payloads equal to and exceeding what our heavy bombers carried then.

During Gulf War 1, guidance technology was still in its infancy compared to where it is today.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 21, 2016)

I think it would be a grave miscalculation to think we would maintain air support services the way we have in Iraq/Stan, if at war with Russia. Their ADA is top notch, they may not have the best aircraft, but they have a lot of them. And in all honesty, the USAF is only going to lose a few of their multi billion dollar toys before they start getting snobby about taking out a tank.


----------



## DA SWO (May 21, 2016)

A lot of dead tanks were considered viable by intel, and slowed the Desert Storm ground war needlessly.
There are many ways to kill a tank, the turret doesn't have to fly off for it to be dead.
I agree with @Etype that Tac Air (and artillery) will wipe out most large tank formations early on.
Everyone needs to learn how to fight a dispersed war.


----------



## Etype (May 21, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I think it would be a grave miscalculation to think we would maintain air support services the way we have in Iraq/Stan, if at war with Russia. Their ADA is top notch, they may not have the best aircraft, but they have a lot of them. And in all honesty, the USAF is only going to lose a few of their multi billion dollar toys before they start getting snobby about taking out a tank.


Once again, Nazis had top notch ADA, Vietnam did as well, as did Iraq (supposedly).

To think we are going  to commit ground forces without gaining air superiority goes against doctrine and every US campaign plan since 1941.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> Once again, Nazis had top notch ADA, Vietnam did as well, as did Iraq (supposedly).
> 
> To think we are going  to commit ground forces without gaining air superiority goes against doctrine and every US campaign plan since 1941.



I was commenting more to the effect of air support being basically on call in Iraq, and that it would not be that way in a war with Russia.

Iraq was using outdated ADA, Vietnam was using modern (at the time) ADA and took down a lot of aircraft and diverted a lot of missions.

Russia has top of the line technology, well trained crews and has been preparing for our air assets specifically. I mean we are talking Russia, a modern professional military force.

I'm by no means saying Russia can whoop us or stop our air. I'm just saying it ain't going to be as easy as Iraq and the guys on the ground are probably not going to have that 15 minutes out service that was common.


----------



## DA SWO (May 21, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I was commenting more to the effect of air support being basically on call in Iraq, and that it would not be that way in a war with Russia.
> 
> Iraq was using outdated ADA, Vietnam was using modern (at the time) ADA and took down a lot of aircraft and diverted a lot of missions.
> 
> ...


ECM in Viet Nam was non-existent when the SA-2 was introduced.
We've come a long way.
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) is an opening day event, and one of the reason we've sold our soul to stealth.
The problem (IMO) is we've not fought a defensive air war since 1942.  We have gotten use to firing the first shots, and responding to an attack is different.


----------



## AWP (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> Once again, Nazis had top notch ADA, Vietnam did as well, as did Iraq (supposedly).
> 
> To think we are going  to commit ground forces without gaining air superiority goes against doctrine and every US campaign plan since 1941.



The Germans had excellent strategic ADA capabilities, but horrible to nonexistent ADA for her maneuver elements. Their best systems were fielded late in the war and in too few numbers to do any good.


----------



## Etype (May 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The Germans had excellent strategic ADA capabilities, but horrible to nonexistent ADA for her maneuver elements. Their best systems were fielded late in the war and in too few numbers to do any good.


I would consider everything in WWII tactical ADA, unless it just couldn't  be moved like flak towers or coastal batteries. We could argue that the 10.5 and 12.8 cm guns were pretty big and heavy, so I guess it'd ve harder for them to keep up with blitzkrieg tactics.

They had their 3.7, and 8.8 cm guns since the '30s.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (May 21, 2016)

Our biggest issue isn't weapons, armor or tactics...

Its the people in the White House and Pentagon letting us take the gloves off to win no matter the cost!!!!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 22, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Our biggest issue isn't weapons, armor or tactics...
> 
> Its the people in the White House and Pentagon letting us take the gloves off to win no matter the cost!!!!


I agree to a degree, this isn't the 1940's and unfortunately warfare (tech, equipment and tactics) has evolved. Desert storm was 25 years ago. Russia took notice, they're not stupid, neither is China, although Russia is far more advanced. We need to update, we need evolve, and we need to understand a big war is likely.

Regardless how fucked up DC is and always will be, we need to stay ahead, or we will be behind. Putin has been dumping money into his military, he is not a fool. While they are being crushed economically, they have been investing into tech, equipment and seasoning their troops. We're stupid to blow it off...

$.02


----------



## Etype (May 22, 2016)

Alright @reed11b , what do you disagree with?


----------



## reed11b (May 22, 2016)

That tanks have gone the way of the battleship and that supersonic fighters and big bombers will be very effective against them. Massed formations in the desert are not the same as massed formations in the forests of Europe and even in the desert our BDA was later found to be ,um, highly optimistic. Poor moral and leadership killed as many Iraqi tanks as bombs.
Reed


----------



## Etype (May 22, 2016)

reed11b said:


> That tanks have gone the way of the battleship and that supersonic fighters and big bombers will be very effective against them. Massed formations in the desert are not the same as massed formations in the forests of Europe and even in the desert our BDA was later found to be ,um, highly optimistic. Poor moral and leadership killed as many Iraqi tanks as bombs.
> Reed


And we've already discussed how Gulf War 1 guidance technology was nothing compared to what it is today.

Hell, we were still using RQ-2s, and JDAMs weren't even a thing yet. We didn't have laser guided artillery or GMLRS either.

Additionally, the sensors on fighter aircraft weren't that great during Gulf War 1, but that's simply not the case anymore.

To the point of poor morale, I think the Russians would lose just as many troops to that as the Iraqis did. The American winning machine is scary.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 22, 2016)

We're also ignoring the amount of munitions that we have, and haven't unleashed, in the current conflicts solely because they are specifically for anti-armor/anti-vehicle combat scenarios. Cluster munitions, etc.


----------

