Why Would Tanks be Vulnerable to Aircraft Today?

[seekaliao]

I do agree that tanks during WW2 and even vietnam/korean war are pretty vulnerable to aircraft. We have seen many T72s taken out by A-10s during gulf war as well.

Fast forward to 2017. We seen super long range Russian S400, Buk Missile and all the way to small infantry held SAMs. We still have automatic flak cannons mounted on tracked vehicles but no longer that common. SAMs does most of the work now.

Lets assume Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO send their planes to take out the Russian tanks. What are the chances of A-10 taking out the pesky T90s? Wouldn't S400 or Buk spotted the A-10s long before they reach their targets? Even if they do, do you think some soldier could have fired their IGLA at the A-10 as well? Or even some SPAAG like Tunguska?

[jarndice]

Any permanent or semi permanent AAA piece will have its location already downloaded into the GPS of a cruise missile,
The Warthog has a lot of redundant systems and can fly with one engine blown off and half its empennage gone,
As to its ability to destroy an MBT in the field its Depleted Uranium ammunition will as many Tankers can testify cut through Armour like a Hot knife through butter.
It is worth bearing in mind that the A10 would not go into battle without support.
Shaun.

[capt midnight]

Any permanent or semi permanent AAA piece will have its location already downloaded into the GPS of a cruise missile,
The Warthog has a lot of redundant systems and can fly with one engine blown off and half its empennage gone,
As to its ability to destroy an MBT in the field its Depleted Uranium ammunition will as many Tankers can testify cut through Armour like a Hot knife through butter.
It is worth bearing in mind that the A10 would not go into battle without support.
Shaun.

Yeah. What he said. The 20mm shells we had when I worked on F-15s were pretty deadly. The combat load on an F-15 for the cannon was Armor Piercing/ Armor Piercing Incendiary. Both had depleted uranium slugs, but the API shell had a core of white phosphorous. Could ruin your whole day!

[jackalope]

And we won't mention GPS guided missile and 1000lb bombs. They'll give you a headache too.

[BarryC]

This sums up tanks from an infantryman's point of view.

Drawing posted under the "Fair Use Act" for the purpose of illustrating a point.

[tomhugill]

The S400 is mobile though so maybe not as vulnerable to cruise as stated. Also I believe they are able to intercept and destroy cruise missiles. Thankfuly as with any of these hypothetical questions there hasn't been a situation where modern AA defences have fought modern aircraft in real anger.

[seekaliao]

Yes, i have also read that s400 is designed to shoot down cruise missiles as well. I am sure there are other AA systems that can do that. Of course, if it can hit cruise missiles, i dont see why it cant hit free falling bombs.

I have never see modern AA vs aircraft in real combat. I dont think gulf war or afghan war are good examples since the weapons are very outdated. I read that russian has s400 in syria but it has never fired a single shot.

Although i agreed that 30mm in the A-10 is deadly, can it get close enough to fire? SAMs have easily 8-10km range. In order to avoid detection by radar, planes have to fly low and this makes them vulnerable to mobile AA weapons.

eg, for my hypothetical scenario, do you think russia will deploy just tanks or it will have numerous air and ground support as well? So i guess we will see a scale of battle never seen before. Cant imagine the carnage

[jackalope]

The A-10 is a flying tank! I'd rather be in the A-10 then manning the AA gun put up against it.

[capt midnight]

I went to one of the navy days in Southampton, I got talking to the sailors about their anti missile systems on their destroyers, they basically said if all else failed to destroy an Exocet missile, and the automated quad barrel guns in a round pod (you can tell I can't remember their name lol) which is the last resort, started up firing, they would basically be very worried.

I knew them as the Vulcan Phalinx. Basically a radar controlled 30mm cannon. I'm thinking that they call them something else now. The older ones you'd designate the target on the radar screen, then, no more target. I think the newer ones can automatically select the highest threat targets, then react accordingly.

Bill

[Aussie]

So really, going on this, you'd need a tank in the convoy dedicated to missile defence alone.

No , that's why they have AA support vehicles specifically designed for that role.
Google , Tank close in weapons defense systems , amazing what they have to combat incoming.