Have the ATGM systems make the Tank obsolete?

After watching and reading about wars for the last 10 years, we have seen tanks get blown up, has the tank become obselte, especially in ubran warfare?

This video backs up my point:

http://southfront.org/russia-defense-report-ratnik-system/

Should probably change the title to "Have ATGMs made tanks obsolete" rather than just the American TOW system.

But in saying that, this thread is rather redundant given the topic has already been discussed multiple times under the Armata thread, Syria threads, and various ATGM threads.

Have headshots made automatic weapons obsolete because sniper rifles seem to kill with one shot?

It is just a useless question, urban warfare is horrible for everything except artillery and how equipment and technology is used decides its usefullness. The militaries are certainly not total idiots to use tanks in urban warfare without being bound to necessity to contain or purge parts of cities from terrorists.

Werewolf wrote:Have headshots made automatic weapons obsolete because sniper rifles seem to kill with one shot?

It is just a useless question, urban warfare is horrible for everything except artillery and how equipment and technology is used decides its usefullness. The militaries are certainly not total idiots to use tanks in urban warfare without being bound to necessity to contain or purge parts of cities from terrorists.

Fair enough.

In Syria max. 40% of all firings actually resulted in a destroyed tank - and that is against T-55s, T-62s and early model T-72s without ERA. So TOW is a pretty ineffective weapon even against obsolete threats.

When facing modern III+ generation MBTs, it's effectiveness would fall to maybe 5%. If the tanks were equipped with modern passive and active protection suystems, it would fall even more - maybe as little as 1%.

Unlike infantry, tanks evolved in protection trendemously since 1970s - and can now counter most, if not all, threats.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:In Syria max. 40% of all firings actually resulted in a destroyed tank - and that is against T-55s, T-62s and early model T-72s without ERA. So TOW is a pretty ineffective weapon even against obsolete threats.

When facing modern III+ generation MBTs, it's effectiveness would fall to maybe 5%. If the tanks were equipped with modern passive and active protection suystems, it would fall even more - maybe as little as 1%.

Unlike infantry, tanks evolved in protection trendemously since 1970s - and can now counter most, if not all, threats.

Well yes aswell as no because urban warfare lot of engagements with ATGM's happen from angles that armor plays only a very little role. Tanks are used more or less half the time as sentries which cover a large amount of space of infested urban environment where rats could be in each building and sometimes you have hard to determine parts of towns and cities that are either infested and just on the other side of a street a daily life with civilians which is the most surreal thing i have ever seen from Syria.

The tank crew even if it had very potent and modern Thermal Imaging Sights the crew would still be very liable to the conditions they are facing, becauce every glowing thing they see on their monitors could be a civilian and depending on situation it might be not the best thing to deliberatley shoot at everything your monitor shows. This is war against foreign terrorism, any misscalculated actions could kill civilians and they will certainly not like it many are willing to take arms to get revenge and then you are just pushing part of civilian population those who had no reason to pick sides or take part in fights to choose sides and by that you could recruite personal for your enemy.

Urban warfare isn't that easy and even old Konkurs can penetrate more modern tanks than T-55/62 or T-72 which we have seen due the environment they are in aswell tactics deployed.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:In Syria max. 40% of all firings actually resulted in a destroyed tank - and that is against T-55s, T-62s and early model T-72s without ERA. So TOW is a pretty ineffective weapon even against obsolete threats.

I'd argue that of that 40% there's still a good % of salvageable MBTs. Ones that can be recovered, repaired and put back to action. Penetration, crew death and complete destruction is a metric we may never appreciate.

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, one of the main killers of Israeli tanks was the Malyutka ATGM (AT-3 Sagger).
That was the first time I heard of "tanks being made obsolete by ATGMs".

Yet, 33 years later, tanks still soldier on and new ones are still built.

Poor tactics and old and outdated equipment hardly signify the end of the MBT's significance. Vehicles that lack MBT armor can also be destroyed even easier by ATGM's, and by other weapons systems that can't defeat MBT armor.

What I find funny is the over-emphasis on the ATGM asymmetrical threat towards MBT's, when MLRS/rocket artillery is a much, much bigger threat in comparison.

ATGM's have so many flaws compared to BVR/IF systems one would never want to soldier on with them on an actual hot war. From possible shitty IR guidance, to cables getting tangled in the nature, to ATGM crew getting spotted, to difficulty to get the powerpacks always GO until range becoming a liability etc etc etc. And there's the damn artillery.


ATGM's are very nice weapons in niche ranges and situations. the BGM-71 is among the less useful systems in a "hot" conflict. It's big, heavy, clumsy has shitty powerpack and you could haul Two Metis and Konkurs for the weight and space or a BGM-71 complement (Launch Unit and two tubes). Basically the tactical environement of the BGM has to be far more "streamlined" than the one of the Metis.

What you see in Syria is basically a big TRE with poorly formed soldiers and very little overwatch. In different situations, the ATGM's were good threats, but didn't caused the same kind of misery. However, they are still PITA in select situations.

Target Rich Environment?

PITA?

The Army in the UK certainly doesn't think so. It is gearing up for a tender that will lead to a $1.4B contract to upgrade the Challenger 2.

Werewolf wrote:Target Rich Environment?

PITA?

Pain in the Azz.

And TRE is Target Rich Environement.

But in fact in Syria it's more ETRE (Easy Target Rich Environement).