Four months have passed since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In the initial stage of the war, the Russian army used the Soviet army's tactic of rapid penetration of armored clusters to conduct deep penetration operations against Ukraine . The troops approached Ukraine within a few days. The capital Kiev , as well as the important towns Kharkiv , Sumy, Kherson , Zaporozhye , etc. However, although the Russian army advanced rapidly during this period, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up troops, the logistics support lines of various intersecting units were frequently attacked by the Ukrainian army, and the Ukrainian army used the "Javelin" and N-guns provided by NATO countries. -LAW and other man-portable anti-tank missiles destroyed a large number of Russian tanks and armored vehicles, so that the Russian army's "first phase of operations" basically failed.
(In the first phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war, a large number of Russian tanks were damaged, which caused many people to question the role of tanks)
The current Ukrainian war has entered the "second phase", and the Russian army's combat methods have undergone extreme changes. A major change, instead of pursuing rapid penetration of mechanized troops to break through, they instead used overwhelming artillery firepower, using heavy artillery 24 hours a day to bombard the Ukrainian army positions, supplemented by precise strikes by aviation forces, using absolute firepower advantage, destroying the Uzbek army's defense line, and slowly advancing with a front-line push. The Russian army's second-stage style of play seemed extremely clumsy, and did not reflect the Soviet army's combat style of that year in which highly armored and mechanized troops rapidly advanced, divided and surrounded, and annihilated the enemy's effective forces. So does this mean that future land warfare will only require artillery , and tanks will no longer be needed? To judge this issue, we need to judge from two aspects: first, whether tanks can be replaced by other equipment; second, how to fight future wars?
(Heavy armored forces are still the core of the armies of major powers in the world)
Tanks are undoubtedly the most important cutting-edge force of the modern army and are currently the best overall performance equipment for the army. Although various types of anti-tank weapons are now dazzling, at least for now, there is no other army equipment that can replace tanks. Although the firepower and maneuverability of the armed helicopter are far more powerful than tanks, its fragile protection determines that it cannot replace tanks. We have seen that on today’s Ukrainian battlefield, the Russian army’s downed Ka-52 armed helicopter exceeded 10 racks. Earlier, in the " Iraq War" launched by the US military in 2003, a US Army Aviation Regiment, with a total of 32 AH-64 "Apache" armed helicopters, was ambushed by Iraqi ground light fire and was killed on the spot. One aircraft was shot down, and all the remaining 31 were damaged. All had to be overhauled after returning home, leaving the US 4th Infantry Division without air cover for a full 24 hours.
(Although armed helicopters have an innate advantage in attacking tanks, armed helicopters are too vulnerable and can be shot down at every turn, making it difficult to cover large forces like tanks.)
Therefore, even if there are drones and armed helicopters, Equipment with greater maneuverability and greater firepower has emerged, but tanks are still irreplaceable. Especially in offensive operations, tanks are still sharp knives that can lead ground troops and tear apart enemy defense lines. This cannot be replaced by any other army equipment in a short period of time.
( During the Fourth Middle East War Israel captured a large number of Soviet-made tanks and adopted them for their own use. Some tanks were even used until the beginning of this century)
Secondly, in a real battlefield environment, the battle of tanks The damage ratio is actually not as bad as some media described. On the contrary, the tank's survivability is quite amazing! For example, in the Fourth Middle East War in 1973, Israel invested a total of about 1,700 tanks. In just 18 hours after the war, it lost about 1,190 tanks (about 70%). However, Israel’s logistics department performed extremely well. , during the entire war, a total of more than 2,000 tanks were repaired before and after (note, it is "vehicle times", not "vehicles", because the same vehicle is often repaired more than once) tanks, and during the war, the Israeli logistics department also More than 300 destroyed Arab army tanks were repaired and incorporated into the Israeli army. After the war, Israel's armored force had nearly 400 more tanks!
(On the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield, many Russian tanks were abandoned by the troops after malfunctioning due to lack of logistical support)
In fact, few people know that 70 to 80% of the tank troops were damaged in one day of fighting, and then underwent overall repairs. , it is actually very common for the entire army to be "resurrected with full health" the next day! Most of the tanks lost by the Russian army on the Ukrainian battlefield were abandoned because they could not be repaired quickly and effectively after being injured in the battle. So this is not a problem with the tanks, but a problem with the Russian army's tactics.
And it should be noted that the actual battlefield effectiveness of the individual anti-tank missiles that were so praised by the United States in the early days of the war can only be said to be "unsatisfactory", because according to US military statistics, the US military has provided Ukraine with approximately 7,000 "Javelins" "The anti-tank missile , coupled with the N-LAW provided by the United Kingdom and other models provided by other NATO countries, NATO has provided Ukraine with a total of close to 10,000 individual anti-tank missiles, but these missiles actually only destroyed less than To 400 Russian tanks, 10,000 to 400, the gap is really big! In fact, this also shows that individual anti-tank missiles are not capable of comprehensively curbing the activities of tanks. In the end, they still need to rely on heavy weapons such as artillery, tanks, armed helicopters or attack aircraft to perform anti-armor combat tasks.
(Russian army shelled violently, Ukrainian army had nowhere to hide)
Specifically, the current combat mode of the Russian army in Ukraine is actually a special combat method, which is "fortifying the stronghold and fighting a dull war". The reason why this occurs This situation is mainly due to two aspects: First, the Russian army's own technology is relatively backward, the degree of informatization is not high, and it lacks integrated surveillance and attack drones, heavy multi-purpose infantry fighting vehicles, and corresponding combat command information networks. , especially the lack of effective battlefield reconnaissance capabilities. Therefore, if large-scale rapid penetration tactics are used, each penetration force will be easily ambushed by the Ukrainian army, which will lead to serious losses. Therefore, the Russian army simply gathered its troops together and deployed them in a line. In this way, there were no protruding troops, and it was difficult for the Ukrainian army to ambush the Russian army.
(Although Russia is still one of the world's major military powers, the four-month war has also made the Russian army feel a serious lack of military strength)
Secondly, the Russian army itself has a problem, which is a serious lack of military strength. Under normal circumstances, while the armored forces are implementing rapid insertion, the subsequent infantry units must closely follow the armored units, and the logistics support detachment must also closely follow the armored units. Only in this way can the safety of the rear supply line be ensured, and at the same time, a sufficient number of infantry units must be able to quickly Clear out the small groups of Ukrainian troops in the occupied areas to stabilize the front. However, the total strength of the Russian army attacking Ukraine is only about 200,000, which is far lower than the number of Ukrainian defense forces. Therefore, it is difficult to quickly eat up the Ukrainian army's heavy troop group. Therefore, after suffering serious losses in the early stage, the Russian army immediately adjusted its deployment, gave full play to its firepower advantage, and began to engage in positional warfare with the Ukrainian army.
(Today heavy artillery has become the most important weapon for the Russian army to win the war)
Li Yunlong in the TV series " Bright Sword " said, "Anything that can pull out pus is a good plaster." Similarly, in terms of tactical application, there is no advanced or backward one. The difference is that what can win the battle is good tactics. The Russian army's tactics are specifically designed to target its strengths and weaknesses. Relatively speaking, although the quality of the individual soldiers of the Ukrainian army is not bad, the difference is that the number of heavy weapons is far less than that of the Russian army. Moreover, the Ukrainian army's logistics supply line is almost cut off by the Russian aviation, and it is in a state of running out of ammunition and food. Moreover, due to the Russian army Using linear tactics without protrusions, the Ukrainian army could not catch the Russian army's loopholes and could not carry out effective counterattacks. They could only hide in the fortifications and be bombed.
(These days, without a drone, you are embarrassed to say hello to people when you go out)
In short, this is a battle between the Russian army and the Ukrainian army. If the Russian army was replaced by the People's Liberation Army, then the battle would definitely not be what it is now. This is because the People's Liberation Army's current army's tactical data link and information construction are no less than those of the US military. Moreover, the People's Liberation Army also has special heavy-duty wheeled armored vehicles (commonly known as "big eight wheels") that the Russian army does not have, which can complete reconnaissance and harassment. , artillery and other combat missions. At the same time, there are a large number of surveillance and attack drones in the sky and fighter jets carrying precision-guided munitions. At the beginning of the war, all bunkers and strongholds on the enemy's front will be accurately named, and then the People's Liberation Army's large-caliber rocket launchers and 155mm howitzers use precision-guided artillery shells to accurately strike targets missed in air strikes. Then tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles will be dispatched under the cover of armed helicopters to directly capture the opponent's position. If the enemy forces try to escape, the People's Liberation Army's armored forces will also implement penetration and encirclement tactics, but we have enough aviation support, and the troops themselves also carry a large number of drones, which can alert the surrounding troops at any time. It is almost impossible for ordinary infantry to ambush such an armored detachment with independent reconnaissance capabilities.
(Future wars cannot be without tanks. The key lies in how they are used and the technical level of the tanks themselves)
So it is not that tanks are not needed in future land wars, but that tanks need to be technologically upgraded like the entire combat system to make tanks more capable. Integrate into the modern combat system, rather than treating the tank as an isolated weapon. Only in this way, with the help of the system, can the tank's combat effectiveness be fully utilized while avoiding the tank's own flaws and shortcomings. Therefore, whether tanks will be needed for future operations, let us analyze the specific issues in and . Some operations require tanks, while others may not.
