Europe
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
You are completely overlooking the fact that drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention. Furthermore, the problem is not that tanks can not be still upgraded further, but that they are waaaay to expensive for the limited benefit they still offer in a battlefield with anti-tank drones deployed. Adding expensive anti-drone defense that is unlikely to be very effective just makes this an even worse argument.
And sorry, that is not a naive view, but rather one that looks beyond narrow tactical considerations, just like the cost argument above. You might be still able to win a battle with tanks, but you can't win a war with them anymore.
Helicopters with anti-tank munitions did not cause the end of the tank, it just led to the development of better supportive anti-air elements.
Drones with anti-tank munitions is not causing the end of the tank, it will just lead to the development of better supportive anti-drone elements.
Also, I don't think you could ever "win a war" with just tanks. They always had been and always will be one piece of a broader combined arms system.
Helicopters are an exceptionally bad counter example as they are uniquely vulnerable and expensive to operate and thus can only be deployed in a very limited fashion.
Helicopters are an excellent example, because they are uniquely vulnerable BECAUSE OF countermeasure systems that were created to deal with them.
Well, if there is ever an equally effective (in costs and actual efficiency) counter-measure against anti-tank drones I am happy to change my opinion.
A well supported combined arms approach. Which is what I said several replies ago.
That is wishful thinking.
No, it's reality.
Not really, tanks aren't being taken out by your cheap and cheerful $400 fpv drones. They need something like a Lancet at minimum which Wikipedia tells me has a $35,000 (or $37,000 - i guess using different exchange rates?) export price which is actually a bit more than a Kornet ATGM at $26,000 (thanks again Jimmy Wales).
An AT4 missile is about 3000 bucks, but tanks still exist.
A bullet is a few cents, yet soldiers are pretty popular in every conflict too.
It's almost as if this is a shitty argument.
There is a huge range of drone between fpv drones and those complex loitering ammunition you mention. The ones most commonly mentioned and deployed by Ukraine against tanks, cost a few thousand at most.
And because they are so massively more effective we know of tanks getting hit by a dozen of themn and just moving on... Oh, wait. Your reference for everything are old Russian tanks (not build for quality but quantity even back then) used badly because Russia sucks at combined arms. All while using support systems that are even older or have their supposed capability only on paper.
Pretending that the war in Ukraine is a modern war because there are mass amounts of drones used is constantly missing the point. That war is as much defined by using obsolete tech and tactics while severely lacking capable air defenses as it is by the addition of drones that incidently exactly exploit that gap.
The thinking you have in your post is the reason why the most advanced military on the earth wastes 7 pac3 missiles on a single Shahed in Iran.
Truth is, nobody have good solutions vs drones yet. Bigger ones like Shahed, yes, maybe, if you have a lot of practice and are capable to build layered AA grid. FPVs are uncounterable yet.
That's because they are as wasteful and learning averse as they are capable on paper.
https://united24media.com/latest-news/eight-missile-for-one-drone-ukrainian-instructors-shocked-by-us-drone-defense-tactics-17085
The US military is used to fighting adversaries way below their own capabilities and doesn't worry about conserving resources, because they like imagining that their supply chain will just deliver more. Iran has spent decades preparing for just this fight, and developed weapons, capabilities, and strategies to specifically exploit this weakness. Sending countless waves of cheap drones to expend expensive and hard to replace interceptor missiles is an attack aimed at both magazine depth and production capabilities. Every drone that gets intercepted by an expensive missile is a victory for whoever launched the drone, because it does damage by the millions of dollars just by destroying an, (or worse, multiple) interceptor missile(s), and depletes the interceptor stockpile.
Ukraine has figured out counter drone tactics quite well already, and will get better out of sheer necessity.
Ukraine has figured out how to counter shaheds - and it's not some silver bullet, it's a huge system of quick responders AND some of them are antiair drones teams.
Ukraine haven't figured out what to do with enemy FPVs. Neither did russia. Which created a deep killzone out of the frontlines. Any serious discussions about defense strategy should be taking this experience as a baseline, not as some incident only applicable for the poor countries.
You can make thousands of drones for the cost of a single modern tank. No amount of hand wringing is going to change the fact that it has gotten a lot cheaper and effective to destroy tanks because of them.
An AT4 missile costs less than a tenth of what a lancet anti tank drone costs, have been around for 30 years and yet tanks still exist.
A bullet costs less than a soldier, why aren't soldiers obsolete yet?
Because neither are as effective per unit.
And so defenses against that specific threat will improve (see: anti-air capable remote weapons stations, active defense, EW).
The same was said when RPGs were invented, then again for ATGMs, the again for their top-attack variants... yet here we are.