It REALLY depends on how you use the tank and how you use those ATGM.
If you do what the Russian do, which is don't bother to run any infantry screen in front of on top of the column, whichever country did that would have the same result. You are effectively allowing your enemy to ambush without you seeing it, and inside that tank, you cant see shit.
From all the footage I saw on how Russian run their Armor, that can be made in a compilation video title "How not to run your armor in modern warfare" I don't see any unit coherent, I don't see dismounted infantry, I don't see overhead gunship accompanied the armor. I mean, it would be stupid not to expect your armor are going to cut to piece if you do stuff like this, sort of like how are you going to expect anything is going to be different? As that is the only logical outcome.
On the other hand, Ukrainian have used their knowledge of their own land pretty well, and the excellent use of cover vs concealment is the key to how those Russian Armor getting cut to ribbon.
How more infantry will help when it is not a man with LAW jumping on you from a ditch threatening your armour, but somebody with 2km+ man portable ATGMs, and very likelly multiple of them.
We've seen videos of single tanks receiving up to 5(!) ATGM hits, without them even trying to return fire, because they likelly never seen them.
Send infantry 2-3 km ahead to clean every tree line? How will they find the enemy in a tree line, when thermal sight on a tank itself can't see an infantry man in IR camo from 1km? How will the tank return fire, and support troops ahead from such distance?
Ukrainians themselves make light ATGMs costing only few thousand USD per shot. And we have not yet spoke about long range non-line-of-sight ATGMs now entering service.
When even piss poor armies can field multiple ATGM teams per moto company today, I think it really puts all current assumptions about mechanised combat upside down. An armoured convoy is seriously outranged by everything now, and, most importantly, outranged by infantry. If even an MBT can be destroyed by a top attack ATGM from up front, then why do you need an MBT?
I believe the doctrines will go back to sixties now. Motorized will be more about a lot of indirect fire support, and bigger formations to stand against more lethal indirect fire coming from other side.
Russian experiment with light regiments, and BTGs has been proven a total, complete failure for so many reasons.
I think its biggest vulnerability is how small autonomous units get totally paralysed by C&C loss, which is inevitable when command sections stay just few kilometers from where contact warfare takes place.
Last edited: