• dumpsterlid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    10 months ago

    Pretty bold to charge a t-90 with a bradley. It looked like they were moving laterally a lot to keep obscuring the hull behind cover and making tracking them difficult. I wonder if they were confident their optics were better or something so that they knew they could keep acquiring the target faster than the t-90 could . I also wonder if they knew the t-90 was in some way damaged and unable to fight back effectively.

    Still, seems like a pretty quick way to die.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      67·
      10 months ago

      Watching the video, it really looks like the T-90 crew had zero clue what was going on. Wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t even know how many vehicles they were being attacked by. Panic, poor training, and the potential for pvt conscriptovich to have sold critical things off for vodka will do a lot to turn a battle against you.

      • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
        43·
        10 months ago

        I think panic. They were taking very accurate fire, and I can only imagine it’s fucking loud when a bushmaster auto cannon is rapidly hitting your tank, even if not penetrating. If even few of the rounds were causing real damage, I could see that relentless barrage jarring almost any crew

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        36·
        10 months ago

        I’m sure after the first few round of the Bradley hitting hitting their armor they started panicking and made everything even worse than it already was too. There’s a lot to be said for a higher rate of fire than a very slow powerful shot. Sure, the T90 probably only needed one good hit, but it takes a lot more luck and skill to get it.

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deMEnglish
      9·
      10 months ago

      i’m guessing that first 25mm shots landed on t-90m’s sensors, and bradleys possibly had radio contact with drone operator, or maybe even live video feed

      • dumpsterlid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        10 months ago

        Definitely moving into an era where armor is near useless if your enemy has effective antitank weapons and there isn’t extremely tight integration between unmanned surveillance vehicles and your armor. I suppose someone could have shot the UAV down here, but if the IFV doesn’t let the pressure up you can’t exactly sit there and gaze around in the sky looking for a tiny little robot while a 25mm autocannon on treads hunts you.

        Not trying to extrapolate too much here, the tank was by itself and likely had a panicked, poorly trained crew but still just imagining the commander in the bradley being able to watch where the tank turret is pointed in real-time and peak only when it wasn’t looking the right direction definitely seems like an utterly decisive advantage (if they were able to do this), especially in an environment that isn’t a full scale battle with so much chaos that the UAV would be destroyed or the information useless. Heck in this situation if the tank started to raise its turret to hit the drone with its coaxial, and the drone is in close contact with the Bradley than that is just a perfect opportunity for the Bradley to attack right?

        I know people say the death of the main battle tank is greatly exaggerated but I think the role of the tank will vastly shift towards emphasizing integration with UAVs like this over most other factors. I know missiles aren’t the same thing as cannons but I don’t understand why an APC with a complement of javelin type missiles couldn’t just sit behind cover and annihilate direct fire armor vehicles with a suite of drones providing targeting. It wouldn’t work at great ranges but for a situation like this a cannon kind of seems a pretty inefficient weapon.

        • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deMEnglish
          8·
          10 months ago

          aka network-centric warfare. you can make reasonable use out of other bradley’s sensors as well, and it works even better in air, with radars and such. you’re forgetting about jammers and some other EW, and also, T90M team missed the first shot (and were fucked from that point on)

          ukrainians are using drones as artillery spotters (for mortars, howitzers, AGLs, even for tanks when used as howitzers) since forever by now. more professional drones like MQ-9 or Bayraktar can carry laser designator, i guess putting one on a mavic is a little bit too much tinkering and too risky

          tanks will go on. tanks are still pretty good at doing things only tanks can, so until someone invents something that does tank things but is not a tank (tank drone maybe?) i’d instead expect another layer of countermeasures like per-vehicle jammers

          • dumpsterlid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            10 months ago

            I don’t expect tanks to go away, I just think in many urban environments or closer range engagements (which for a tank, “close” is still a pretty damn far distance) a vertical launched missile system contained within armored vehicle with guidance by a suite of unmanned surveillance vehicles makes way more sense than a big direct fire cannon.

            I think the problem is mainly recovery and launching of unmanned vehicles in a quick, reliable matter that doesn’t expose the crew, or some long haul ability for the unmanned vehicles to loiter for extended periods… which may prove to be a very big problem idk.

            Yeah a trophy system that detonates antitank missiles before impact definitely provides a deterrent but I’m not so sure that those systems will keep functioning after the tank has been attacked by any significant caliber weapon or artillery. It also seems like a sensible counter to just launch multiple dummy missiles. How smartly can a trophy system really differentiate between real threats and false ones? I feel like direct fire tanks will always be a thing but it seems odd to not pair them with the kind of anti armor vehicle I am thinking of at this point unless the tank expects to encounter no armor.

            • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deMEnglish
              4·
              10 months ago

              yes, missile spam is always a threat. sometimes two is enough (see RPG-30). sensors need to be outside, so if you can destroy them, things get easier. same goes with ERA, but the first hit tends to alert crew pretty reliably

              do you want to put VLS on IFV? this gets expensive really quickly, and you don’t always need this capability. sometimes you need to clear a trench, or a bunker, or level a building, or something like mortar site, you can do it all with a big gun and it’s cheap, easy and fast. tank vs tank fights do seem to be pretty rare in current war, but happened in ie desert storm. TOW can do some of these things you’re thinking of, and it seems that few people considered these corner cases

              • dumpsterlid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                10 months ago

                Yeah I am not talking replacing a tank as a mobile machine gun nest/cannon used for creating and exploiting holes in a defensive line during an assault, a normal direct fire tank is as you say better suited for that. I am talking about normal tanks having an armored mobile close range vertical missile launch system that also manages unmanned surveillance vehicles as a compliment for extremely high threat situations as well as edgecases where cannon isn’t ideal.

                When people say the tank isn’t going to die anytime soon I get what they are saying it is easy to sit in an armchair and speculate but I just don’t see how direct fire tanks make sense operating without a vehicle nearby with the capacity to hit non-LOS targets with guided missiles.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
    621·
    10 months ago

    The Bradley may be old, but the equipment mounted to it is anything but. Poor T90 probably never saw it coming.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          10 months ago

          Oh yeah the movie was hilarious, but the guy who was critical of the program in real life was an idiot.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          8·
          10 months ago

          It’s real in that the actual facts of it occured, but the authors interpretations of events were almost all incorrect.
          View it through the lens of a person who didn’t actually know how development works.

          The main guy wanted to do big live fire tests. The testing range wanted to skip them because they already knew that the vehicle would fail, or because they didn’t yield workable data.
          They wanted to do smaller, more statistics oriented tests, so they could better direct development.

          Basically he wanted to fire Russian antitank rounds at a fully loaded vehicle, when everyone knew the result would be “it blows up”.
          He called it honesty, they called it needless waste because it didn’t produce data they could actually use.

          The results of the congressional inquiry was, rather than being “add more armor”, that his transfer was because of a disagreement on methodology and an inability of his office to work with the testing laboratory, and that the army had resolved concerns that he raised.

        • yesman@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          10 months ago

          Lot’s of details were misrepresented. Things like filling the gas tanks with water and loading ammo with sand during live fire tests may seem like cheating. But penetration into the magazine or fuel tank can tell you the vehicle is vulnerable to secondary explosions without those explosions turning the vehicle into confetti.

          To the average Joe, any military development project is going to look like a boondoggle. They don’t know about procurement bureaucracies, economies of scale, or the expense of product development. The Ford company spent more to develop the Taurus than the US spent to develop the B2.

          I’m also going to put on my tinfoil hat for a second and say that lots of myths about American Military incompetence are encouraged. It’s a good thing that our enemies think that our equipment is dogshit and our Generals are corrupt.