Ukraine

[Dalisclock]

Well. Tanks have to work in units, and units can only be in one place at a time, so in theory aim the tank offensive somewhere where they won't face strong opposition. In a frontline as large as the Russia-Ukraine war, this should be doable - at least initially. Some sort of reaction force should arrive eventually, although this may take a few days. In smaller conflict zones (e.g. Arab-Israeli wars), tank on tank warfare was effectively guaranteed.

Ideally, Tanks works in combined arms units where they have supporting infantry to flush out enemy infantry(including Anti tank teams and artillery spotters) to avoid your tanks getting creamed by infantry with ATGMs or calling in artillery/air strikes on your poor exposed tankie boys. Russia apparently has had problems with this at times during this war, making the tanks easy pickings for both. Traditionally this is what APCs are for, to allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks, but on the same token, APCs aren't tanks and can easily be killed by them(or by the same ATGM or artillery/airstrikes).

Complicating this is the use of drones by Infantry to spot enemy troops/tanks and also call in fire on tanks and a drone can be the size of a RC plane(for a small, cheap one) or something like the Global Hawk which can fly from the US and loiter for 16 hours high above the battlefield where its hard to engage.

Basically, Tanks have their uses for sure but OTOH it's easier then ever to spot them and if you have artillery or ATGM you can make life much more dangerous for them. And yes, other tanks can slug it out with each other and then it comes down to range(and the ability to effectively target at the upper limits of your gun range) and efficient use of cover and flanking.

On a related note the Memetic Gay Scottish Pig did a tank video about Russia's most famous Wunderwaffe, the T-14. And while it wouldn't be my primary source it is entertaining. Considering the tank itself is military vaporware, why not just go with this?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ideally, Tanks works in combined arms units where they have supporting infantry to flush out enemy infantry(including Anti tank teams and artillery spotters) to avoid your tanks getting creamed by infantry with ATGMs or calling in artillery/air strikes on your poor exposed tankie boys. Russia apparently has had problems with this at times during this war, making the tanks easy pickings for both. Traditionally this is what APCs are for, to allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks, but on the same token, APCs aren't tanks and can easily be killed by them(or by the same ATGM or artillery/airstrikes).

I've heard (but can't confirm), that part of the problem is that mechanised units are just grabbing whatever infantry they can get and taking them with them to assault positions, without training together or co-ordination, or even much advanced warning that that's a thing the infantry might be doing sometime in the future, or even that's what they are doing while they've started doing it.

 

[Dalisclock]

I've heard (but can't confirm), that part of the problem is that mechanised units are just grabbing whatever infantry they can get and taking them with them to assault positions, without training together or co-ordination, or even much advanced warning that that's a thing the infantry might be doing sometime in the future, or even that's what they are doing while they've started doing it.

Yep, sounds like Russia, honestly.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yep, sounds like Russia, honestly.

One has to suspect a certain problem is that even if you originally trained infantry to work with your AFVs, once you've got most of the regular army killed or wounded and the places padded with raw recruits, you probably don't have many troops trained in combined arms operations left.

 

[Dalisclock]

One has to suspect a certain problem is that even if you originally trained infantry to work with your AFVs, once you've got most of the regular army killed or wounded and the places padded with raw recruits, you probably don't have many troops trained in combined arms operations left.

Yeah. It's one thing to teach infantry to fire a rife and being in the army, it's another to teach them how to be effective soldiers. The US army spends 10 week on Basic Soldier training, and after that each soldier goes to learn their actual job, which for an a basic infantry guy is 22 weeks to learn the infantry job(which presumably involves a lot of combined arms training). So like half a year to learn how to be an effective soldier.

Now in a shooting war I'm sure some of that gets expedited in the interest of getting bodies to the front or whatever fat that can be cut in that process does. I've heard shit about Russia at least at one point was giving conscripts like a week or two of training before bundling them off to the front to get shot at. If that's true, it would explain a lot.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah. It's one thing to teach infantry to fire a rife and being in the army, it's another to teach them how to be effective soldiers. The US army spends 10 week on Basic Soldier training, and after that each soldier goes to learn their actual job, which for an a basic infantry guy is 22 weeks to learn the infantry job(which presumably involves a lot of combined arms training). So like half a year to learn how to be an effective soldier.

Now in a shooting war I'm sure some of that gets expedited in the interest of getting bodies to the front or whatever fat that can be cut in that process does. I've heard shit about Russia at least at one point was giving conscripts like a week or two of training before bundling them off to the front to get shot at. If that's true, it would explain a lot.

During WW2, the training people for USMC combat personnel varied from about 8 weeks to as low as 4 (though it was only 4 briefly). Spent only 5 hours learning to use the bayonet. Originally the idea was that the newly trained marines would get sent to a combat unit that had been taken off the line, so they'd have time to get to know the people and their jobs before seeing combat. In practice, it was often go up to your unit over there somewhere in the morning, bodybag by nightfall. Some veterans didn't bother learning their names. There was a documented case of a new recruit not knowing they had to pull the pin on the grenades before throwing them at the Japanese.

As for the current situation in Russia, I'm led to believe (cannot confirm) that a lot of the "trained soldiers" were local defence militia types who weren't trained for combined arms offensives because that wasn't their intended role at all. They might have been alright sitting in Russia territory as a defensive force.

 

[Bedinsis]

A piece of news I just found out at twitter.


About a year ago I also read that a mass exodus of Russians have made the rents in Yerevan skyrocket, for som additional context.

I wonder how Armenia will respond to Western sanctions. On the one hand, tying their fate to Russia sounds foolish, but on the other hand, Russia is their ally in making sure Nagorno-Karabach is not made Azerbaijani.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well. Tanks have to work in units, and units can only be in one place at a time, so in theory aim the tank offensive somewhere where they won't face strong opposition. In a frontline as large as the Russia-Ukraine war, this should be doable - at least initially. Some sort of reaction force should arrive eventually, although this may take a few days. In smaller conflict zones (e.g. Arab-Israeli wars), tank on tank warfare was effectively guaranteed.

The problem is, tanks are also very difficult to hide. They were hard to hide in world war 2 and are basically impossible to hide today. If you send all the tanks to one location because you don't think they'll face resistance, the enemy can also send all their tanks (and other uncommitted reserves) to the same location because while they might not want to face all your scary tanks they probably also don't want you to break through the frontline and cause whatever chaos fast-moving armoured vehicles can cause if they get into the operational depth where all the ammo dumps and supply lines are.

This wasn't as evident on the Western front, but it was extremely obvious on the Eastern front where engagements between large formations of tanks were common despite the massive length of the frontline. It also led to an arms race of tanks becoming increasingly specialized towards engaging each other.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I wonder how Armenia will respond to Western sanctions. On the one hand, tying their fate to Russia sounds foolish, but on the other hand, Russia is their ally in making sure Nagorno-Karabach is not made Azerbaijani.

It might end up part of Russia one day, though... You know, entirely by accident.

 

[Ag3ma]

This wasn't as evident on the Western front, but it was extremely obvious on the Eastern front where engagements between large formations of tanks were common despite the massive length of the frontline. It also led to an arms race of tanks becoming increasingly specialized towards engaging each other.

This is not true: large tank engagements were in fact relatively rare. A tank was required to be able to engage other tanks, but the bulk of fighting a tank would see was not against other tanks and this informed a lot of design decisions that armies made.

For instance, although US doctrine held that tanks should be able to kill other tanks, it intended tank destroyers to combat enemy armour. The British had envisaged tank on tank warfare, but found in the desert this occurred rarely: their tanks were generally engaged by AT screens, not enemy armour. Hence why later, unable to fit the 17-pounder to most of their tanks, they preferred the US 75mm which was markedly inferior to their own 6-pounder as tank killer because the HE shell was more important. The same goes for the later war Russian heavies (IS range): these had a large calibre gun but with modest penetration and rate of fire far too slow to be a good tank killer. These again were designed more for blasting away at infantry and fortified positions.

 

[Ag3ma]

I wonder how Armenia will respond to Western sanctions. On the one hand, tying their fate to Russia sounds foolish, but on the other hand, Russia is their ally in making sure Nagorno-Karabach is not made Azerbaijani.

This sort of sanction-busting is common. For instance, years ago after the EU banned honey from China due to high concentration of chemicals deemed inappropriate for human consumption, the exports of honey to the EU from Singapore exploded the year after. Needless to say, Singapore is not famed for honey production. Chinese producers just sold honey to Singapore, where it was conveniently rebadged to conceal its origins.

However, bear in mind even where this occurs, it still heavily limits Russia's abilty to access snacitoned goods. Firstly, Russia still almost certainly cannot purchase in the quantities it desires: things like electronics are more likely to be sold in relatively small quantities through black markets. Secondly by having to go through middlemen, the middlemen are going to take their cut (and potentially a sizeable one), so the goods will be significantly more expensive.

 

[Terminal Blue]

This is not true: large tank engagements were in fact relatively rare.

Relative might need some clarification here. Even in highly mechanized armies, tanks were relatively rare compared to infantry. There are however, very large, destructive and deliberate engagements between armored forces on the eastern front, generally aimed at preventing one or the other from capitalizing on breakthroughs. The whole idea of tanks-as-cavalry where they would simply break through the line and drive around unopposed was always kind of silly. It worked in France mostly due to luck, mistakes and the rather weird priorities of British and French interwar tank design, but at the end of the day if both sides have tanks capable of about the same speed, anywhere one side can attack with tanks the other side can also defend with tanks (assuming they need to).

For instance, although US doctrine held that tanks should be able to kill other tanks, it intended tank destroyers to combat enemy armour.

This is true. However, it's also worth noting that tank destroyers in general were a transitional concept that largely disappeared by the end of the war because, in effect, all tanks became tank destroyers. All tanks start carrying very powerful anti-tank guns. Now, sure, there's a lot of more general changes that contribute to that as well. Engines are more powerful so it's easier for tanks to mount bigger guns, infantry have become far more dangerous to tanks, meaning that whole idea of tanks being an invincible counter to infantry doesn't work any more, but also I will argue there is a certain expectation that tanks will need to engage with each other if they're going to act as any kind of breakthrough force.

The British had envisaged tank on tank warfare, but found in the desert this occurred rarely: their tanks were generally engaged by AT screens, not enemy armour. Hence why later, unable to fit the 17-pounder to most of their tanks, they preferred the US 75mm which was markedly inferior to their own 6-pounder as tank killer because the HE shell was more important.

I mean, until the Centurion comes along, then we're back to the 17-pounder. In fact, one of the first modifications on the centurion was to strip out its secondary anti-infantry cannon and replace it with a smaller machine gun.

Again though, you're correct, but I don't think it's an argument against the point I'm making. The British in general clung onto the idea of tanks as a supporting force for infantry for way, way too long, but the reality is that it had flipped, and no army really fully adapted to that during the war even as it became more and more true. Unsupported tanks were incredibly vulnerable to infantry with anti-tank weapons. The ultimate solution to this was motorization and combined arms but in the 40s that idea was very much in its infancy, which is why you get sketchy shit like tank desant.

Regardless, the North Africa campaign is weird because in general neither side seems to have cared all that much about the actual territory.

 

[Satinavian]

In the beginning of WWI the German tank doctrine was exactly as Ag3ma describes. Its tanks, especially Panzer III and Panzer IV were designed for it. (Panzer I/II were never intended to actually see war, even if it happened anyway). And it worked well for the first couple of years, especially in France. But eventually the Soviet Union tried to counter this and found it was very much able to do so by spreading its own tanks out. And as the war dragged on tank on tank engagements became more common and tank designs changed accordingly.

 

[ralfy]

Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World

It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Silvanus]

Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World

It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.

foreignpolicy.com

Apparently I'm at my "free article limit", though I can't remember reading much stuff on there before.

Summary?

 

[Avnger]

Apparently I'm at my "free article limit", though I can't remember reading much stuff on there before.

Summary?

Essentially detailing the three parts of the Sino-Russian "not-alliance":

Economic

In recent years, Sino-Russian economic ties have grown. Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China had displaced the United States and Germany to become Russia’s No. 1 trading partner and top buyer of Russian oil and gas. In the past year, China has provided an economic lifeline for Russia, buying everything the West won’t and helping Russia maintain access to financial markets amid sweeping Western sanctions. Chinese purchases of Russian energy last year were up 50 percent from 2021 levels while bilateral trade hit record highs. China was not only the world’s largest exporter to Russia in 2022, but it also accounted for the largest year-over-year increase in export volume to Russia of any country in the world. Last month, the yuan overtook the dollar as the most traded currency on the Moscow Exchange for the first time ever, representing almost 40 percent of total trading volume.

Military

Furthermore, while many Americans discount Sino-Russian military cooperation, as a former Russian national security advisor has put it to me, China and Russia have the “functional equivalent of a military alliance.” China regularly participates in joint military exercises with Russia that dwarf those the United States conducts with its much more publicized “strategic partner,” India. It sent soldiers to Russia’s annual Vostok exercises in September and conducts joint air and naval exercises on a near-monthly basis. Russian and Chinese generals’ staffs now have candid, detailed discussions about the threat U.S. nuclear modernization and missile defenses pose to each of their strategic deterrents. While, for decades, Russia was careful to withhold its most advanced technologies in arms sales to China, it now sells the best it has, including S-400 air defenses. The two countries share intelligence and threat assessments as well as collaborate on rocket engine research and development. More recently, Beijing and Moscow have collaborated to compete with Washington in a new era of space competition.

Diplomatic

Their diplomatic coordination has also ramped up as Xi and Putin become increasingly convinced Washington is seeking to undermine their regimes. The two countries almost always vote together in the United Nations Security Council and reinforce each other’s political narratives. For instance, China has repeatedly refused to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a war, instead labeling it an “issue,” “situation,” or “crisis.” Its diplomats and propaganda megaphones echo even Russia’s most extreme claims about the war, blaming NATO for ignoring Russia’s “legitimate concerns” and suggesting the United States wants to “fight till the last Ukrainian.”

 

[Silvanus]

Essentially detailing the three parts of the Sino-Russian "not-alliance":

Economic

Military

Diplomatic

Hrmm... this is pretty much all about the value China has for Russia. But with Russia's economy being smaller than Germany's, the UK's, Japan's or South Korea's, that doesn't equate to global significance, and nor does it equate to an equivalent value for China. Especially with Russia's economy being hyper-focused on petroleum, the significance of which will only decrease in future. They do not have the diversity of economy to keep up even their current economic standing.

In terms of military, the myth of Russian military parity with the other major global players has been categorically undone.

 

[Dalisclock]

Hrmm... this is pretty much all about the value China has for Russia. But with Russia's economy being smaller than Germany's, the UK's, Japan's or South Korea's, that doesn't equate to global significance, and nor does it equate to an equivalent value for China. Especially with Russia's economy being hyper-focused on petroleum, the significance of which will only decrease in future. They do not have the diversity of economy to keep up even their current economic standing.

In terms of military, the myth of Russian military parity with the other major global players has been categorically undone.

Arguably it's not hard to read this as China turning Russia into a Vassal State.

 

[Satinavian]

Arguably it's not hard to read this as China turning Russia into a Vassal State.

China has not yet gained any lasting power over Russia. The whole situation only lasts as long as Russia is still cut off from everyone else. If the war is over and Putin gone it might look very different.

To make Russia into a proper vassal state, China would need to engage and invest far more. China has no direct control over the Russian economy and not enough connections to the Russian elites.
But changing that would be costly and risky and Putin would fight it.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Essentially detailing the three parts of the Sino-Russian "not-alliance":

Economic

Military

Diplomatic

I'm wondering if Russia has forgotten how quickly its non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany fell through the moment a former Austrian corporal found it expedient. China may not be as overtly racist and nationalistic, but if Putin thinks that anyone in Beijing regards Russians as equals, then he's been out in the sun on his horse for way too long.