Hi all, I found this video doing a comparison of NATO tanks and Soviet tanks on the Ukraine battlefield:
I'd be interested in hearing what the video got right, and what it got wrong.
If you can provide transcript for the video I can tell you.
In the meantime:
You can't compare tanks unless you have meaningful parameters and ceteris paribus of:
- similar doctrine,
- tactical level,
- crew training,
- combined arms support
- comparable combat scenarios.
For example it is possible to compare T-72 and T-80 in Russian service during this war but not Russian tanks with Ukrainian tanks. They fight too differently.
Furthermore tanks, more than any other ground combat system, are designed for intended use in large numbers - at the very minimum it is the platoon level for NATO tactics (4 tanks) and company level for Russian tactics (10 tanks). Ideally it is a tank battalion for both.
The misconception comes from the fact that many combat systems can be meaningfully compared 1-on-1. People online like to compare aircraft or warships and these work fairly well 1-on-1. But for example even IFVs are different from tanks in that they can be assessed on three levels:
- as a company-strength AFV formation fighting at a distance - company of IFVs is fighting
- a platoon-strength mechanised formation closing the distance to deploy its infantry - platoon of IFVs and infantry are fighting
- a single vehicle supporting its dismounted squad - infantry squad is fighting and IFV is providing support
Tank tactics don't work like this, even though tanks can be used in the above manner with a degree of success. Tanks are like infantry - they operate in packs. Tanks also have a primary mission on the battlefield which is facilitating breakthrough and the resulting penetration raid in the enemy rear. The second mission is combined armour-infantry assault on defended positions which is the stage immediately before the breakthrough and tanks are used as fire support as well as the force executing the penetration raid in case of success. A single tank providing support or fighting another tank, that's an accident, an error of command or poor planning on higher level.
This is why Russia lost so many tanks during the first assault on Vuhledar in winter last year - they were attempting to use
textbook armoured tactics and massed several tank battalions for the purpose of combined arms assault and attempt at breakthrough on a local level. Ukrainian defenses were too strong and the losses were inevitable.
Talking about western tanks is also meaningless because Ukraine is not only not using tanks the way tanks are meant to be used (see above) but from what I've seen
they're using NATO vehicles to execute WarPact tactics. There's a reason why Soviet tanks were primitive - they fit the intended tactics. WarPact tactics were primitive because they relied on
mass conscription for offensive warfare. Offensive warfare is more difficult than defensive warfare and you can't train conscripts sufficiently well during their time of service. So WarPact used greater numbers and larger tactical formations to compensate for insufficient number of trained officers and NCOs. This is why until mid-80s the tank regiment was 81 tanks in 5 companies of 16 tanks. Each company had platoons commanded by non-commisioned "praporchiki" and tanks commanded by sargeants who were not professional NCOs! It was only in the 1980s that they started to reform their regiments to the current 3x3x(3x3+1) structure.
In WarPact personnel determined tactics and tactics determined tank design and
not the other way around. If you give cheap weapons to expensive soldiers you're wasting soldiers' potential. If you give expensive weapons to cheap soldiers you're wasting the weapon's potential.
Using M1A1 the same way that a T-72 was meant to be used is wasting M1's potential. M1A1 were intended to be used by professional crews in cooperation with M2 with professional dismounts. They were also intended for the defensive, not the offensive.
Ukraine got 31 M1A1 - that's a Soviet 1980s tank battalion. The platoons are not meant to be used individually, the company of 10 tanks is the minimum tactical level. Has anyone seen Ukrainians using 10 M1A1's at the same time? I haven't seen them use Leopard 2s properly and they got over twice as many of them as the Abrams.
Before the war Ukraine was attempting to transition to NATO company model with 14 tanks (3x4 +2) while keeping WarPact mech companies with 10 BMPs but as soon as mobilisation entered the picture they reverted to WarPact doctrine since that's what reserves understand and... it is a doctrine designed for mass mobilisation with limited training after all.
Also talking about tank performance when personnel performance - including command - is unknown is wasting time. Ukrainian 47th brigade had best equipment (M2, L2A6) and they failed miserably near Orikhiv because they had poor quality personnel. At the same time experienced mechanised brigades using M113s and T-72s were having success in other parts of the front.
M113 for example is doing surprisingly well in Ukraine because it is tall enough that dynamic mounting/dismounting of troops is possible. BMP-1/2 and BTR-80s have horrible ergonomics because they were meant to
dismount only during assault that was performed with numerical superiority and with tank support, and the dismounting was done at approx. 500m before enemy lines while the vehicles were
moving forward. It made sense for WarPact at the time but it's a horrible design to do anything else. M113 or YPR-765 with 12,7mm are preferred to BMP-1s with inaccurate Grom guns because of flexibility. Ukrainians love M2s and CV90s because they're better armoured M113 with bigger guns.
As for tanks the opinions I heard is that they acknowledge that they're better than Soviet designs (M1/L2 are generation newer than T-72/80) but they can't really use them properly because they simply don't have the necessary support to mass and utilise tank formations. So instead we're getting Vuhledar but on a smaller scale.
I've heard and read plenty of meaningful comparisons between personnel carriers and artillery but tanks are simply not used in a way that allows for it. Anyone who claims otherwise while relying on OSINT sources is lying but since lying pays online more and more people do it.
in your arguments) although less important now that Su34 also can launch Kinzhal.