Edit It looks like Ukraine has began serious production of truck mounted mobile 155mm artillery systems, something the US doesn’t take seriously here because it can lean on an assumed air superiority to deliver overwhelming force, something Ukraine can’t do . This coupled with a depletion of Russian tanks might actually be decisive here since the more Ukraine can field mobile, extreme lethality cannon artillery the more necessary it becomes for Russia to have main battle tanks with significant armor and extreme survivability under the hellish conditions of metal shards hurtling at terrible speeds in all directions from exploding ordnance…
The problem with artillery smaller than this is that it doesn’t actually pose an existential threat to very highly armored/entrenched targets and the range is that much more limited. Again, if the U.S. had taken arming Ukraine seriously, they would have made sure that the Ukranian military had a very deep and resilient supply of mobile artillery pieces that could serve in place of the role U.S. airpower plays (or U.S. forces assume air power will play at least). As long as Ukranian infantry has access to effective, shoulder launched anti-tank weapons this could tip the balance of the war significantly.
longer answer
I hope this hits Russia hard, but I wonder how much Russia needs tanks at this stage of the war vs a breadth and depth of infantry and artillery reserves.
Main battle tanks are for punching through enemy defenses and making a run on enclosing enemy forces/enemy territory.
Once you capture that territory tanks are still very much useful, especially because of their mobility and ability to reposition quickly, but they aren’t necessary in the same way that you need some kind of tank or something behaving like a tank in the maneuver portion of the war. Even if Ukraine counterattacks with main battle tanks, the most effective counters in that case are artillery, entrenched infantry, and mechanized infantry with effective AT that can respond and reposition to slow down armored columns attempting to break through their front lines. Don’t get me wrong, tanks would absolutely decisively help too, but if I had to choose between depriving Russia of artillery and depriving Russia of tanks, I would choose artillery. I mean… obviously but especially at this stage of the war.
Who knows though, I hope Ukraine can get a steady supply of main battle tanks from someone (do they currently?), if Russia can’t field main battle tanks even if it doesn’t immediately affect the strategic balance of the war, the immediate psychological impact and tactical efficiency of tanks chewing through emplaced machine gun nests and enemy positions will be huge. No matter where you are on the battlefield you know that if Ukranians show up with an actual main battle tank, you are fucked as a Russian unless you have a whole lot of artillery/air support at the ready (which they do sometimes).
A single tank if used with an effective screen of infantry can delete entire columns of armored personnel carriers and armored fighting vehicles, I hope Russia suffers severely from a lack of tanks to directly counter this.
The problem though is that the Ukranians need much more artillery or extensive & resilient close air support for their tanks to be anything other than juicey targets for Russians unless they are always kept in the rear and deployed as very limited motorized artillery pieces. To the Ukranians an abrams mbt is effectively just a shittier paladin in the current status quo.
…Add the persistent presence of self propelled 155mm artillery backing Ukranian infantry and armor though and the current status quo of fiddly uav flying bombs and horrific close quarters fighting will simplify for the Russians to “get in a trench or heavily armored vehicle or die”. This will hopefully create a situation where tanks are much more necessary for Russia.
Modern war is like rock paper scissors, tanks are the rock, infantry are the paper and artillery is the anvil dropped on the rock paper scissors game…
for some reason I originally had it in my head the Paladin wasn’t as large as an artillery piece, idk why, I guess because it is tracked and it was developed so many decades before this current wave of self propelled guns were developed.
Still, my point stands though, if the U.S. was serious about arming Ukraine from the beginning, they would have focused on supplying Ukraine with self propelled guns and lots of artillery. It feels like the effort to help Ukraine defend itself was more an effort to help stall the war and keep Russia from decisively winning for as long as possible…
Edit It looks like Ukraine has began serious production of truck mounted mobile 155mm artillery systems, something the US doesn’t take seriously here because it can lean on an assumed air superiority to deliver overwhelming force, something Ukraine can’t do . This coupled with a depletion of Russian tanks might actually be decisive here since the more Ukraine can field mobile, extreme lethality cannon artillery the more necessary it becomes for Russia to have main battle tanks with significant armor and extreme survivability under the hellish conditions of metal shards hurtling at terrible speeds in all directions from exploding ordnance…
The problem with artillery smaller than this is that it doesn’t actually pose an existential threat to very highly armored/entrenched targets and the range is that much more limited. Again, if the U.S. had taken arming Ukraine seriously, they would have made sure that the Ukranian military had a very deep and resilient supply of mobile artillery pieces that could serve in place of the role U.S. airpower plays (or U.S. forces assume air power will play at least). As long as Ukranian infantry has access to effective, shoulder launched anti-tank weapons this could tip the balance of the war significantly.
longer answer
I hope this hits Russia hard, but I wonder how much Russia needs tanks at this stage of the war vs a breadth and depth of infantry and artillery reserves.
Main battle tanks are for punching through enemy defenses and making a run on enclosing enemy forces/enemy territory.
Once you capture that territory tanks are still very much useful, especially because of their mobility and ability to reposition quickly, but they aren’t necessary in the same way that you need some kind of tank or something behaving like a tank in the maneuver portion of the war. Even if Ukraine counterattacks with main battle tanks, the most effective counters in that case are artillery, entrenched infantry, and mechanized infantry with effective AT that can respond and reposition to slow down armored columns attempting to break through their front lines. Don’t get me wrong, tanks would absolutely decisively help too, but if I had to choose between depriving Russia of artillery and depriving Russia of tanks, I would choose artillery. I mean… obviously but especially at this stage of the war.
Who knows though, I hope Ukraine can get a steady supply of main battle tanks from someone (do they currently?), if Russia can’t field main battle tanks even if it doesn’t immediately affect the strategic balance of the war, the immediate psychological impact and tactical efficiency of tanks chewing through emplaced machine gun nests and enemy positions will be huge. No matter where you are on the battlefield you know that if Ukranians show up with an actual main battle tank, you are fucked as a Russian unless you have a whole lot of artillery/air support at the ready (which they do sometimes).
A single tank if used with an effective screen of infantry can delete entire columns of armored personnel carriers and armored fighting vehicles, I hope Russia suffers severely from a lack of tanks to directly counter this.
The problem though is that the Ukranians need much more artillery or extensive & resilient close air support for their tanks to be anything other than juicey targets for Russians unless they are always kept in the rear and deployed as very limited motorized artillery pieces. To the Ukranians an abrams mbt is effectively just a shittier paladin in the current status quo.
…Add the persistent presence of self propelled 155mm artillery backing Ukranian infantry and armor though and the current status quo of fiddly uav flying bombs and horrific close quarters fighting will simplify for the Russians to “get in a trench or heavily armored vehicle or die”. This will hopefully create a situation where tanks are much more necessary for Russia.
Modern war is like rock paper scissors, tanks are the rock, infantry are the paper and artillery is the anvil dropped on the rock paper scissors game…
155mm, and the U.S. has about 1500 of its M109 self propelled guns in service.
for some reason I originally had it in my head the Paladin wasn’t as large as an artillery piece, idk why, I guess because it is tracked and it was developed so many decades before this current wave of self propelled guns were developed.
Still, my point stands though, if the U.S. was serious about arming Ukraine from the beginning, they would have focused on supplying Ukraine with self propelled guns and lots of artillery. It feels like the effort to help Ukraine defend itself was more an effort to help stall the war and keep Russia from decisively winning for as long as possible…